Items in cart [0]
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
NUCLEAR WASTES
Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
Committee on Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems
Board on Radioactive Waste Management
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1996
OCR for page R2
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by the Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government, and upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are the chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
The work was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. Contract No. DE-FC01-94EW54069/R.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Nuclear wastes : technologies for separations and transmutation / Committee on Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-309-05226-2
1. Radioactive wastes—Purification. 2. Separation (Technology) 3. Nuclear reactions. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems.
TD898.17.N83 1995
621.48′38—dc20 95-46577
CIP
Cover: Mary M. Bernstein, a painter and resident of Amherst, Massachusetts, received her MFA from the University of Maryland. Her paintings range from abstract work to social commentary. In 1983, she published Dance in a Small Space, a book of drawings about the experience of motherhood. She is the co-founder of an on-going and growing interactive painting dialogue, called "Mother Tongue."
Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
COMMITTEE ON SEPARATIONS TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSMUTATION SYSTEMS (STATS)
NORMAN C. RASMUSSEN, Chair,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
THOMAS A. BURKE,
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
GREGORY R. CHOPPIN,
Florida State University, Tallahassee
ALLEN G. CROFF,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
HAROLD K. FORSEN,*
Bechtel National, Inc., San Francisco, California
B. JOHN GARRICK,
PLG, Inc., Newport Beach, California
JOHN M. GOOGIN,†
Martin Marietta Energy, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee
HERMANN A. GRUNDER,
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, Newport News, Virginia
L. CHARLES HEBEL,
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, California
THOMAS O. HUNTER,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
MUJID S. KAZIMI,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
EDWIN E. KINTNER,
Norwich, Vermont
ROLLAND A. LANGLEY,
BNFL Inc., Washington, D.C.
EDWARD A. MASON,‡ Chairman,
Amoco Corporation (retired), Napier, Illinois
FRED W. MCLAFFERTY,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
THOMAS H. PIGFORD,
Kensington, California
DAN W. REICHER,§
Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
JAMES E. WATSON, JR.,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
SUSAN D. WILTSHIRE,
J.K. Research Associates, Beverly, Massachusetts
NRC Staff
C.A. ANDERSON, Director
K.T. THOMAS, Senior Staff Officer, Study Director
VERNA BOWEN, Administrative Assistant
LISA CLENDENING, Administrative Assistant
PATRICIA JONES, Project Assistant
*
Served as a member until August 5, 1993, after which time he served as an unpaid consultant to the committee.
†
Resigned June 1, 1993.
‡
Deceased January, 1994.
§
Served as a member until May 1992.
OCR for page R4
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION
FRED W. McLAFFERTY,* Chair,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
JAMES BUCKHAM,
Allied General Nuclear, Aiken, South Carolina
GREGORY R. CHOPPIN,*
Florida State University, Tallahassee
MELVIN S. COOPS, retired,
Santa Rosa, California
GERHART FRIEDLANDER,
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York
JOHN M. GOOGIN,* †
Martin Marietta Energy, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee
DARLEANE C. HOFFMAN,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California
C. JUDSON KING, III,‡
University of California, Berkeley
ROLLAND A. LANGLEY,*
BNFL Inc., Washington, D.C.
ROBERT A. OSTERYOUNG,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh
RAYMOND G. WYMER,§
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired), Oak Ridge, Tennessee
NRC Staff
DOUGLAS RABER, Staff Director
SCOTT WEIDMAN, Senior Staff Officer,
*
Also member of the STATS Committee.
†
Deceased January, 1994.
‡
Resigned March, 1994.
§
Resigned September 30, 1993.
OCR for page R5
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSMUTATION
EDWIN E. KINTNER,* Chair,
GUP Nuclear Corporation (retired), Norwich, Vermont
ERSEL A. EVANS, consultant,
Richland, Washington
HAROLD K. FORSEN,†
Bechtel National, Inc., San Francisco, California
HERMANN A. GRUNDER,*
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, Newport News, Virginia
WILLIAM M. JACOBI, retired (nuclear engineering),
Monroeville, Pennsylvania
MUJID S. KAZIMI,*
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JOHN C. LEE,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
GLENN E. LUCAS,
University of California, Santa Barbara
THOMAS H. PIGFORD,*
University of California, Berkeley
KUNIHIKO UEMATSU,‡
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris
NRC Staff
MAHADEVEN MANI, Director
JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Senior Program Officer
SUSANNA CLARENDON, Administrative Assistant
*
Also member of the STATS Committee.
†
Served as a member until August 5, 1993, after which time he served as an unpaid consultant.
‡
Did not participate.
OCR for page R6
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTEGRATION
EDWARD A. MASON, Chair, retired,
Osterville, Massachusetts
THOMAS J. BURKE,
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
ALLEN G. CROFF,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
B. JOHN GARRICK,
Pickard, Lowe, & Garrick, Inc., Newport Beach, California
L. CHARLES HEBEL,
Xerox Corporation, Palo Alto, California
THOMAS HUNTER,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
ROLLAND A. LANGLEY,
BNFL Inc., Washington, D.C.
THOMAS H. PIGFORD,
University of California, Berkeley
NORMAN RASMUSSEN,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
DAN W. REICHER,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
JAMES E. WATSON,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
SUSAN D. WILTSHIRE,
J.K. Research Associates, Inc., Beverly, Massachusetts
NRC Staff
K.T. THOMAS, Senior Staff Officer, Study Director
LISA CLENDENING, Administrative Assistant,
NOTE: The integration Subcommittee was active until May 1992. All Integration Subcommittee members are members of the STATS Committee.
OCR for page R7
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, Chair,
ENVIRON Corporation, Emeryville, California
B. JOHN GARRICK, Vice-Chair,
PLG, Incorporated, Newport Beach, California
JOHN F. AHEARNE,
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
JEAN M. BAHR,
University of Wisconsin, Madison
LYNDA L. BROTHERS,
Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, Washington
SOL BURSTEIN,
Wisconsin Electric Power, Milwaukee (retired)
MELVIN W. CARTER,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta (emeritus)
PAUL P. CRAIG,
University of California, Davis (emeritus)
MARY R. ENGLISH,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
ROBERT D. HATCHER, JR.,
University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Knoxville
DARLEANE C. HOFFMAN,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California
H. ROBERT MEYER,
Keystone Scientific, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado
PERRY L. McCARTY,
Stanford University, California
CHARLES McCOMBIE,
National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Wettingen, Switzerland
PRISCILLA P. NELSON,
University of Texas at Austin
D. KIRK NORDSTROM,
U.S. Geological Survey, Boulder, Colorado
D WARNER NORTH,
Decision Focus, Incorporated, Mountain View, California
GLENN PAULSON,
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago
PAUL SLOVIC,
Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon
BENJAMIN L. SMITH, Independent Consultant,
Columbia, Tennessee
Staff
CARL A. ANDERSON, Staff Director
KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Associate Director
ROBERT S. ANDREWS, Senior Staff Officer
KARYANIL T. THOMAS, Senior Staff Officer
THOMAS E. KIESS, Staff Officer
SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research Associate
ROBIN L. ALLEN, Administrative Assistant
REBECCA BURKA, Administrative Assistant
LISA J. CLENDENING, Administrative Assistant
DENNIS L. DUPREE, Administrative Assistant
PATRICIA A. JONES, Project Assistant
ANGELA R. TAYLOR, Project Assistant
ERIKA L. WILLIAMS, Project Assistant
OCR for page R8
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES
M. GORDON WOLMAN, Chair,
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
PATRICK R. ATKINS,
Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. BRUCE,
Canadian Climate Program Board, Ottawa, Ontario
WILLIAM L. FISHER,
University of Texas, Austin
GEORGE M. HORNBERGER,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville
DEBRA KNOPMAN,
Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
PERRY L. MCCARTY,
Stanford University, California
DEBRA MCDOWELL,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
S. GEORGE PHILANDER,
Princeton University, New Jersey
RAYMOND A. PRICE,
Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario
THOMAS A. SCHELLING,
University of Maryland, College Park
ELLEN SILBERGELD,
University of Maryland Medical School, Baltimore
STEVEN M. STANLEY,
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL,
Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida
Staff
STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director
MORGAN GOPNIK, Assistant Executive Director
GREGORY SYMMES, Reports Officer
JAMES MALLORY, Administrative Officer
SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate
SUSAN SHERWIN, Project Assistant
OCR for page R9
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
PREFACE
Beginning in the 1940s, the U.S. government engaged in a very vigorous program of research, development, and utilization of nuclear energy. One part of the program was focused on the design and production of nuclear weapons. The other part of the effort was focused on the development of nuclear power reactors for both military and civilian use. From the beginning it was clear that use of nuclear energy would result in the generation of considerable amounts of high-level waste, containing radionuclides that are intensely radioactive and/or have long half-lives. Though it was recognized quite early that high-level waste would have to be managed safely without unacceptable risks to humans, for many decades other parts of the nuclear program (including interim storage) were given higher priority. The spent reactor fuel was stored in pools at the reactor site, and the high-level liquid wastes resulting from processing of defense reactor waste were put into underground tanks as temporary solutions to the problem. The age of the oldest of these "temporary" tanks containing processed liquid wastes is now approaching 50 years. Spent civilian-reactor fuel storage has been uneventful, but the high-level waste tanks are corroding and some have developed leaks, creating a hazardous situation. At many reactor sites these storage pools are nearly full—a situation requiring the construction of additional on-site pools or dry storage facilities.
It is expected that by about 2010 the U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors will have produced about 63,000 Mg (about 70,000 tons) of spent fuel. This will contain about 90% of all high-level radioactive waste in the U.S. nuclear program. The remaining spent fuel will result from the military program.
Extensive work has been done on research, development, and evaluation of methods for the ultimate safe disposal of this spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. These studies have almost all concluded that the most practical approach would be to vitrify the liquid high-level wastes in a glass matrix. The resulting glass would then be encapsulated in suitable containers and buried in a specially selected and evaluated stable geological formation deep underground. Present U.S. policy is that spent power reactor fuel would also be encapsulated and buried.
To implement the disposal process, several recent administrations have announced their intention to establish a national repository for high-level radioactive waste. They developed a program schedule and passed legislation to provide the funding mechanism needed to carry out the program. However, the schedule for the program has been marked by continuous delays, and successive plans have had to be abandoned, resulting in billions of dollars of wasted expenditure. Some reasons for this dilemma are technical, but many are nontechnical. The current stalemate on the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is an example of such a case. When Yucca Mountain was identified by the U.S. Congress as the first site to be evaluated, the Nevada governor initiated legal steps to try to stop the federal government from taking any steps to evaluate the site, even though it is on federal property.
Due to legal interventions such as this, the DOE-sponsored work to establish Yucca Mountain as the first U.S. high-level waste repository is over budget and behind schedule. Still in its investigative phases after many years of effort, it has not yet even been determined if the site is suitable.
Because of all these difficulties, DOE continues to explore other disposal options that might circumvent such problems. Some of the proposed solutions have focused on separating the hazardous long-lived radioactive nuclides in the waste and transmuting them by neutron bombardment to form nuclides that would be either stable or radioactive
OCR for page R10
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
with a much shorter half-life. During the last decade, there has been a renewed interest by a few countries in such proposals, and some technological progress has been reported. This has led several of the DOE national laboratories to reexamine this concept to see if it might be put to practical use. Although this approach is technically feasible, its use involves several practical problems—a major technical problem is the requirement for production of very high neutron source intensities, which poses severe engineering and material challenges. Another difficult problem is achieving the very high efficiency required in the chemical separation of the radionuclides to be transmuted from the other wastes. Unless high separation efficiency is obtained, full benefits of transmutation may not be achieved. The residual waste may still be contaminated to the extent that it must be considered as high-level waste. In addition to these technical problems, the issues of economics, licensing, and public acceptance present significant obstacles to the adoption of transmutation systems.
As part of the reexamination of separations and transmutation (S&T) technology systems, in 1991 the Secretary of Energy, Admiral James D. Watkins, Jr., requested the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a broad systems review of the application of S&T concepts to radioactive waste disposal. To implement this request, the NRC formed a 19-member multidisciplinary committee on Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems (STATS), under the direction of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management. The committee was assisted by a subcommittee on Separations, under the NRC's Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, and a subcommittee on Transmutation, under the NRC's Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. These subcommittees included 10 additional experts. A third STATS subcommittee on Integration functioned until May 1992.
The expertise of these committees included engineering, physical and chemical sciences, accelerator physics, radioactive and hazardous waste disposal technologies, health and safety assessment, economics, public and regulatory policies and procedures, and plant operations.
The scope of the study was to prepare a reviewed report evaluating the relative effects, costs, and feasibility of employing separations and transmutation technologies in the Department of Energy's programs for managing (1) spent nuclear fuel from civilian power reactors, and (2) radioactive wastes in tanks at selected existing defense production reactor sites.
To initiate the study, an international workshop was held in January 1992, where the committee was briefed on the current status of knowledge in the field by experts representing a wide cross section of disciplines. Following the workshop, the committee undertook an in-depth evaluation of all the aspects concerned with separations technology and transmutation through a number of meetings and briefings. It met with representatives of laboratories and organizations involved with the work and visited their sites in the United States and abroad.
In May 1992, in response to a request by the Secretary of Energy, an interim report of the committee was submitted that summarized the committee's information at that time concerning actinide burning in advanced liquid-metal reactors and the possible impacts on the repository program.
The committee examined the currently used ''once-through" fuel cycle versus proposed separations technology and transmutation systems for dealing with high-level radioactive waste. Two principal transmutation concepts involving critical reactors, both light-water reactors and advanced fast reactors were examined. In addition, a system was reviewed in which an accelerator combined with a subcritical reactor assembly produced neutrons. The committee also examined in detail the applicability of S&T in the management of defense wastes stored in tanks at the Hanford site.
This volume constitutes the final report of the STATS Committee. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of separations technology and transmutation technologies, its current status, and some insight on future potential. Associated topics dealing with health, safety, proliferation, socioeconomical, and regulatory issues are covered, as are possible schedules and economics of potential S&T systems. The report further examines whether implementation of S&T concepts can contribute to a safer and more economical waste disposal option than the present "once-through" fuel cycle and waste disposal option.
The report begins with an Executive Summary followed by a brief introduction to S&T technology in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 gives a description of the technologies involved. Chapters 3 and 4 describe the current status of separations and transmutation technologies, respectively. Some of the issues associated with defense waste are covered in Chapter 5. A number of important issues including licensing, health and safety, proliferation, and economics are reviewed in Chapter 6. Those desiring a more technical discussion will want to refer to Appendices C through K and Appendix P. Because of the frequent use of acronyms, the reader may find Appendix O valuable.
The STATS report had the benefit of the time and talents of highly professional and dedicated committee members, and it was my privilege and pleasure to work with them on this project. I acknowledge with thanks the many long hours and arduous work they provided in researching, writing, and revising their contributions to the many complex issues involved in separations technology and transmutation systems. Similarly, I extend my appreciation to the Department of Energy, which funded the study and express my appreciation to its staff for their technical support for
OCR for page R11
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
the committee's work. On behalf of the committee I also express gratitude to the many scientists and engineers representing various organizations and laboratories who briefed the committee and supplied it with the required technical reports dealing with research, development, and evaluation studies on the subject.
The Subcommittee on Transmutation was chaired by Ed Kintner. The Subcommittee on Separations was chaired by Fred McLafferty. Edward Mason was chairman of the Subcommittee on Integration. My special thanks go to the chairs and members of the subcommittees for their valuable contributions to the STATS committee work.
John M. Googin, a STATS Committee member, died in January 1994. His vast knowledge in engineering and chemical sciences and extensive corporate memory made his contributions to the STATS Committee invaluable. We grieve his loss.
The successful conclusion of a study of this magnitude is very dependent on the skills, dedication, and energy of the NRC staff who were assigned to the committee. In particular I thank K.T. Thomas, STATS Study Director and Senior Staff Officer of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management for his many valuable contributions to the study. His pleasant personality, dependability, and talents were responsible for many improvements in the final report. Carl A. Anderson, Director of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, also made many contributions, particularly to the interim report.
Thanks also go to James J. Zucchetto, Staff Officer for the Subcommittee on Transmutation, and Scott T. Weidman, Staff Officer for the Subcommittee on Separations, and their respective directors of the two boards, Mahadevan Mani and Douglas J. Raber. Finally, I thank Lisa Clendening, Verna Bowen, and Patricia Jones of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management for their valuable work and guidance in seeing this report through to completion.
NORMAN C. RASMUSSEN, Chair
Committee on Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems
OCR for page R12
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R13
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
The "Once-Through" Fuel Cycle
1
The S&T Concepts
2
Overall Conclusions
2
Detailed Findings and Conclusions
3
Principal Recommendations
10
1
INTRODUCTION
11
Committee Mission and Operation
11
Background On Spent Reactor Fuel and High-Level Waste Disposal
14
Organization of the Report
19
References
19
2
SUMMARIES OF S&T PROPOSALS AND RADIONUCLIDES RELEASE SCENARIOS IN REPOSITORY
21
Source and Characteristics of Radionuclides in Spent Fuel
21
Summary of S&T Proposals and Technology Statements
27
Radionuclides and Repository Performance
32
References
35
3
SEPARATIONS TECHNOLOGY
37
Historical Background
37
Types of Wastes
39
Types of Separations
40
Separations for Transmutation of LWR Fuel
44
Conclusions
47
References
48
4
TRANSMUTATION SYSTEMS
49
Transmutation Processes and Concepts
50
Reduction of Transuranic Inventories
58
Reduction of Key Fission Product Inventories
72
Safety Issues for the Reactor, Fuel Materials, and Supporting Fuel Cycle
72
Development Time, Cost, Feasibility, and Risk Through System Demonstration
74
Time Scales and Costs for Model System Deployments
77
Comparative Thermal and Electrical Efficiencies
81
Principal Findings and Conclusions
81
References
85
OCR for page R14
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
5
DEFENSE WASTES
87
The Hanford Tanks
87
Scenarios for Hanford Tank Remediation
93
Conclusions and Recommendations
98
References
98
6
ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES
99
Impact of S&T On Waste Repository
99
Transportation-Related Issues
102
Proliferation Issues
104
Health and Safety Issues
108
Cost of Fuel Reprocessing
112
Policy, Institutional, and Management Issues
118
Regulatory Issues
120
Research and Development Needs
125
References
126
APPENDIXES
A STATEMENT OF WORK
131
B LIST OF COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
133
C BASE CASE ONCE-THROUGH URANIUM FUEL CYCLE FOR LIGHT-WATER REACTOR WITH GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY
135
D SEPARATIONS TECHNOLOGY
147
Introduction
147
Aqueous Processes
148
Nonaqueous Processes
152
Reprocessing Experience in the United States and Abroad
164
Future Separations Processes
168
References
186
E DEFENSE WASTES — ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
191
Hanford Disposal Costs for High-Level Waste Canisters
191
Savannah River Site Plans for A Defense Waste Processing Facility
193
References
199
Selected Bibliography
200
F TRANSMUTATION CONCEPTS
201
Advanced Liquid-Metal Reactor
201
The Light-Water Reactor
224
The Los Alamos Accelerator Transmutation of Waste
241
The Particle Bed Reactor Concept
285
The Accelerator-Based Phoenix Concept
297
References
308
G EFFECTS ON REPOSITORY
315
Background Information On Repository Performance
315
Impact of Transmutation
320
Summary and Conclusions
348
References
351
OCR for page R15
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
H NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION ISSUES
355
Introduction
355
Nonproliferation Policy and International Safeguards
358
Assessment of Proliferation Issues for S&T Systems
368
Case 1: Integral Fast Reactor Breeder/Burner
375
Case 2: Baseline Accelerator Transmutation of Waste
376
Case 3: Advanced Accelerator Transmutation of Waste
377
Case 4: Hybrid Almr/Lwr System
377
References
378
I HEALTH AND SAFETY
383
Introduction
383
Discussion of Concepts
386
ATW
387
ALMR/IFR
388
LWR
389
PBR
390
CURE
390
Risk and Safety Summaries: Radioactive Waste Treatment Concepts
392
References
411
J FUEL REPROCESSING ECONOMICS
413
Introduction
413
Historical Perspective
413
Relative Economics of Reprocessing Versus Once-Through Fuel Cycle
416
Principal Issues in Determining Whether To Adopt Reprocessing and Transmutation As A Waste Management Strategy
416
Reprocessing-Plant Capital Costs
417
Reprocessing-Plant Operating Costs
426
Financing of Reprocessing/Transmutation Reactor Facilities
427
Estimated Unit Costs of Lwr Reprocessing
431
Comparison With Published Reprocessing Prices
431
Comparison With OECD/NEA Breakeven Reprocessing Price
434
Reprocessing-Cost Sensitivity Studies
436
Potential Savings for Nth-Of-A-Kind Plants
436
Threshold Cost of LWR Fuel Reprocessing for ALMR Use
440
Historical Cost Growth On Projects Employing Advanced Technologies
442
Summary and Conclusions
443
References
444
K SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL SEPARATIONS AND TRANSMUTATIONS ACTIVITIES
447
Programs of Individual Nations
447
International Organizations
452
OECD/NEA
453
Observations
454
References
455
L INTERIM REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATIONS TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSMUTATION SYSTEMS
457
M BIOGRAPHIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATIONS TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSMUTATION SYSTEMS
475
OCR for page R16
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
N GLOSSARY OF TERMS
485
O ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
509
P GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
513
INDEX
557
OCR for page R17
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
NUCLEAR WASTES
OCR for page R18
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
This page in the original is blank.