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



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation NUCLEAR WASTES

OCR for page R1
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation This page in the original is blank.