FIGURE 1 Long -range schedule for development of electrometallurgical treatment technology.



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 53
AN ASSESSMENT OF CONTINUED R&D INTO AN ELECTROMETALLURGICAL APPROACH FOR TREATING DOE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL FIGURE 1 Long -range schedule for development of electrometallurgical treatment technology.

OCR for page 53
AN ASSESSMENT OF CONTINUED R&D INTO AN ELECTROMETALLURGICAL APPROACH FOR TREATING DOE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page 53
AN ASSESSMENT OF CONTINUED R&D INTO AN ELECTROMETALLURGICAL APPROACH FOR TREATING DOE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL B COMMITTEE MEETINGS FIRST MEETING, JAN. 9-11, 1995 Washington, D.C. AGENDA Monday, Jan. 9 Executive Session 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:30 Welcome and introductions (Fred Basolo, study committee chair) 8:45 Background to study and discussion of charge (Douglas Raber, National Research Council) 9:15 Bias and conflict of interest discussion (Paul Uhlir, NRC) 10:15 Break Open Session 10:30 DOE expectations for this study (Bill Magwood, DOE) 10:45 Overview of DOE spent fuels and the motivations for processing them Discussion leaders: Rip Anderson, Sandia; Tracy Rudisill, Savannah River; Al Pajunen, Hanford 12:30 Lunch 1:30 Overview of ANL's proposal to ameliorate the current status of DOE spent fuel (Alan Schriesheim, Charles Till, and/or Yoon Chang, Argonne) 2:00 Technical description of ANL proposal (Jim Laidler, Chuck McPheeters, John Ackerman, Eddie Gay, Argonne) 4:00 Open discussion of the ANL proposal and the reasonableness of an electrometallurgical approach to treating DOE spent fuel 5:30 Adjourn for day 6:00 Reception and dinner for committee Tuesday, Jan. 10 Open Session 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:30 Discussion of the history and current state of electrometallurgical technology as it applies to DOE spent fuel; identification of potential obstacles facing the use of such techniques for treating DOE spent fuel and consequent R&D needs Discussion leaders: Milt Levenson, Bechtel Power Corp. (ret.); Mel Coops, Lawrence Livermore (ret.) 10:00 Break 10:15 Summary of the ongoing CISAC reactor panel study on disposal of plutonium (John Ahearne, Sigma Xi) 11:00 Open discussion on non-technical obstacles to an electrometallurgical approach

OCR for page 53
AN ASSESSMENT OF CONTINUED R&D INTO AN ELECTROMETALLURGICAL APPROACH FOR TREATING DOE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 12:30 Lunch 1:30 Committee questioning of speakers and guests 3:30 Final thoughts (Fred Basolo, Bill Magwood) 3:45 Break Executive Session 4:00 Committee reaction to briefings and discussions; identify list of issues for the committee's full study and additional information needs. 6:00 Working dinner for committee Wednesday, Jan. 11 Executive Session 8:00 Breakfast 8:30 Reactions to ANL proposal 9:30 Thoughts on state of R&D 10:15 Break 10:30 Reasonableness of the technology for the waste form problem 11:30 Institutional hurdles 12:15 Lunch 1:00 Identify consensus statements for interim report 2:30 Outline interim report 3:00 Break-out sessions to draft sections of interim report; e.g., – group to comment on the motivations for treating DOE spent fuel – group to comment on state of the electrometallurgy and of necessary R&D – group to comment on appropriateness of DOE pursuing this course 4:00 Discussion of draft sections 5:00 Plans for finalizing the interim report 5:30 Discuss remainder of the study and its schedule 5:45 Adjourn GUESTS AND SPEAKERS John P. Ackerman, Argonne National Laboratory James Adams, Safe Energy Communication Council John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society Harry Alter, U.S. Department of Energy D.R. “Rip” Anderson, Sandia National Laboratories Yoon Chang, Argonne National Laboratory Melvin Coops, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired) Michael P. French, U.S. Department of Energy Eddie C. Gay, Argonne National Laboratory Eli I. Goodman, U.S. Department of Energy Daniel Horner, Nuclear Control Institute Ray A. Hunter, U.S. Department of Energy

OCR for page 53
AN ASSESSMENT OF CONTINUED R&D INTO AN ELECTROMETALLURGICAL APPROACH FOR TREATING DOE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL Jo Husbands, National Academy of Sciences James Laidler, Argonne National Laboratory Terry R. Lash, U.S. Department of Energy Milton Levenson, Bechtel Power Corporation (retired) Bill Magavern, Public Citizen William Magwood, U.S. Department of Energy Charles C. McPheeters, Argonne National Laboratory Albin Pajunen, Westinghouse Hanford Company Tracy Rudisill, Westinghouse Savannah River Co. Alan Schriesheim, Argonne National Laboratory Karyanil Thomas, National Research Council Charles E. Till, Argonne National Laboratory SECOND MEETING, FEB. 13-14, 1995 Chicago, Ill. AGENDA Monday, Feb. 13 Executive Session 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:30 Outcome of interim report 8:45 Agenda for Argonne visit; Issues and open questions for ANL visit 11:30 Lunch 12:15 Travel to ANL 1:00 ANL visit 5:30 Return from Argonne 6:30 Dinner in hotel Tuesday, Feb. 14 Open Session 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:30 Presentation by Dan Horner, Nuclear Control Institute 9:00 Open discussion of possible shortcomings to an electrometallurgical approach, possible alternatives, and the DOE Technology Integration Plan 12:00 Lunch Closed Session 1:00 Committee discussion: goals for the final report; plans for next meeting 3:00 (approx.) Adjourn

OCR for page 53
AN ASSESSMENT OF CONTINUED R&D INTO AN ELECTROMETALLURGICAL APPROACH FOR TREATING DOE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL GUESTS AND SPEAKERS Harry Alter, U.S. Department of Energy Bill D. Burch, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired) Jerry Guon, The Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International Harry Harmon, Westinghouse Savannah River Co. Daniel Horner, Nuclear Control Institute James Laidler, Argonne National Laboratory W.B. Sumner, Westinghouse Savannah River Co. THIRD MEETING, MARCH 23-24, 1995 Idaho Falls, Idaho AGENDA Thursday, March 23 Closed Session 7:45 a.m. Meet in lobby of Shilo Inn for committee tour of the Argonne-West facilities. Breakfast on own. 7:00 p.m. Committee dinner at Shilo Inn restaurant Friday, March 24 Open Session 7:30 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 Presentation by Rob Rechard, Sandia National Laboratories Direct disposal and other issues 8:30 Presentation by Grant Culley, Westinghouse Hanford Co. Status and plans for N-reactor fuel 9:00 Presentation by Al Hoskins, INEL Status and plans for fuels stored at INEL 9:30 Presentation by Beatrice Brailsford, Snake River Alliance Community concerns about the electrorefining process 9:45 Discussion 10:15 Break Closed Session 10:30 Committee discussion of meeting goals 11:15 Discussion of draft advantages, disadvantages, and open issues (lunch at 11:45) 1:15 Report on Lawrence Livermore's classified study of proliferation potential of electrorefining 1:30 Discussion of other correspondence 2:00 List points of agreement on advantages and/or disadvantages 2:30 List open issues within committee's purview

OCR for page 53
AN ASSESSMENT OF CONTINUED R&D INTO AN ELECTROMETALLURGICAL APPROACH FOR TREATING DOE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 3:00 Break 3:15 Develop plans for addressing open issues (see also the attached list) 4:15 Develop rough outline of final report 5:00 Agree on writing assignments and timeline for finishing this project 5:30 Adjourn GUESTS AND SPEAKERS Harry Alter, U.S. Department of Energy John Baker, U.S. Department of Energy Beatrice Brailsford, Snake River Alliance Yoon Chang, Argonne National Laboratory Grant Culley, Westinghouse Hanford Company Jim Laidler, Argonne National Laboratory Gary McDannel, Lockheed Idaho Technology Co. Rob Rechard, Sandia National Laboratories FOURTH MEETING, APRIL 27-28, 1995 Washington, D.C. AGENDA Thursday, April 27 Closed Session 8:00 a.m. Breakfast in meeting room 8:30 Update on DOE's plans and interest in a follow-on study 9:00 Acceptance/modification of meeting agenda; agreement on meeting goals Open Session 9:30 Presentation by Steve Gomberg, DOE Office of Civilian Waste Remediation Waste form requirements and the process of their development 10:00 Discussion 10:30 Break Closed Session 10:45 Discussion of Ray Wymer's April 20th letter to the committee (handout); Feedback on writing assignments from Idaho meeting 12:30 Lunch 1:15 Formulation of major conclusions and recommendations 3:00 Break-out writing groups. - Task 1 is to develop outlines for the chapters assigned to the group - Task 2 is to piece together complete drafts

OCR for page 53
AN ASSESSMENT OF CONTINUED R&D INTO AN ELECTROMETALLURGICAL APPROACH FOR TREATING DOE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 5:15 Adjourn 5:30 Reception in Members' Room, National Academy of Sciences 6:00 Dinner, Members' Room (joined by Ray Wymer) Friday, April 28 Closed Session 8:00 a.m. Breakfast in meeting room 8:30 Progress reports from break-out groups, presenting outlines and major points for each chapter; identify gaps in draft material and conclusions in need of better substantiation 9:00 Break-out writing sessions continue 12:30 Lunch (working lunch if desired) 1:30 (Plenary session) - Reports from break-out groups - List points to be covered in Chapter I - Develop plans to finalize report 4:00 Adjourn GUESTS AND SPEAKERS Harry Alter, U.S. Department of Energy Anna Aurilio, U.S. Public Interest Research Group Steve Gomberg, U.S. Department of Energy

OCR for page 53
AN ASSESSMENT OF CONTINUED R&D INTO AN ELECTROMETALLURGICAL APPROACH FOR TREATING DOE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL C ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT ANL - Argonne National Laboratory ATR - Advanced Test Reactor DOE - U.S. Department of Energy EBR-II - Experimental Breeder Reactor II EIS - Environmental Impact Statement EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FCF - Fuel Conditioning Facility HEU - Highly Enriched Uranium HLW - High-Level Waste IFR - Integral Fast Reactor INEL - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory LWR - Light Water Reactor MOX - Mixed Oxide MT - Metric Tons MTHM - Metric Tons of Heavy Metal NRC - National Research Council ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor R&D - Research and Development SNF - Spent Nuclear Fuel SPR - Single Pass Reactor SRS - Savannah River Site TMI - Three Mile Island TRU - Transuranic element

OCR for page 53
removal of residual transuranic elements from the spent electrolyte salt, the zeolite column and associated equipment for extraction of fission products and their immobilization, and hot-pressing equipment for consolidation of the waste-bearing zeolites into solid monolithic form. Major milestones for the FYI995-FYI997 period are as follows: Major Milestones, FY-1995 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Install and demonstrate engineering-scale zeolite column equipment (3/95) Complete demonstration of electrolyte filtration for removal of particulates (3/95) Begin demonstration of multi-stage pyrocontactor system for removal of residual transuranic elements from electrolyte salt (3/95) Establish metal waste form melting furnace operating parameters (4/95) Verify zeolite surface salt removal process (6/95) Demonstrate zeolite preparation equipment: dehydrating, hot blending (~/95) Demonstrate mineral waste form consolidation process (9/95) Major Milestones, FY-1996 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Install pump/fiItration system in the ANL-W Fuel Cycle Facility (4/96) Complete design of multi-stage pyrocontactor for use in the Fuel Cycle Facility (5/96) Complete modifications to the Fuel Cycle Facility casting furnace for metal waste form production (7/96) Install mineral waste form consolidation equipment in the ANL-W hot cells (7/96) Complete design of zeolite absorption column and ancillary equipment for installation in - the Fuel Cycle Facility (9/96) Major Milestones, FY-1997 (2) Initiate conceptual designs of waste treatment and waste form production equipment for on-site treatment of metallic spent filets, oxide spent fuels and storage basin sludge (1/97) Conduct demonstration testing of zeolite absorption column with hot waste streams at ANL-W (9/97) Conduct demonstration testing with hot multi-sta~e nvrocontactor (1/971 . . ~~~r ~^ I,,, Waste Form Production and Qualification. Mineral waste form development activities will focus on the verification of the chemistry and physical performance of both pure and clay-bonded zeolite-based waste forms. A selection of the final candidate waste form, between a glass-bonded zeolite and sodalite, will be made after completion of screening tests. Testing of a zeolite column system will be carried out to verify the kinetics of fission product adsorption, leading to a cold demonstration of the waste form production process at the ~ kg batch size. A hot demonstration of the production of the mineral waste form will be conducted as soon as sufficient waste material is available from demonstration of the electrometallurgical treatment processes. An evaluation of the feasibility of including the transuranic elements in the mineral waste form will be done at the laboratory scale. Formulation of the metal waste form, which includes the cladding materials and the transuranic elements, will be developed for the range of spent fuel compositions under investigation. Scaleup from A-10

OCR for page 53
the present laboratory-scale (25g) samples will begin with operation of a 2.5 kg fluxing melter, first with simulated materials and subsequently with radioactive materials. Development of a continuous-feed melter for production will begin with conceptual design studies. Qualification of the electrometallurgical treatment process wastes for repository disposal will be carried out in accordance with a Waste Form Qualification Plan to be issued early in FY1995. Performance testing of the two high-level waste forms will be conducted in compliance with the provisions of that plan, and will include characterization of physical and mechanical properties as well as resistance to leaching by groundwater. Radiolytic effects on the integrity of the waste forms will be examined as well. Major milestones for this task for the period FYI995-FYI997 are as follows: Major Milestones, FY-199S (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Issue waste form qualification plan (2/95) Establish mineral waste form characterization method (4/95) Issue waste form requirements and criteria document (6/95) Establish reference composition for TRU product form (7/95) Complete initial corrosion testing of reference metal waste form compositions (7~95) Issue interim mineral waste form acceptance data package (9/95) Complete mechanical testing of reference metal waste form compositions (9/95) Major Milestones, FY-1996 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Fabricate and test metal waste form samples from hot wastes (3/96) Fabricate and test mineral waste form from simulated sludge feed (4/96) Fabricate mineral waste form samples from FCF hot wastes (7/96) Fabricate and test hot specimens of TRU product form (~/96) Confirm radiation stability of mineral waste form (9/96) Issue performance and characterization tests document (9/96) Major Milestones, FY-1997 (2) (3) (4) (5) Issue criteria and selection methodology document (12/96) Complete mechanics characterization of full-scale cold waste forms (4/97) Fabricate and test full-scale hot metal waste form (7/97) Fabricate and test hot specimens hom sludge process (9/97) Fabricate and test full-scale hot mineral waste form (9/97) LONG-RANGE SCHt OCR for page 53
the electrometallurgical treatment of sodium-bonded metallic fuel (demonstrating the applicability of the technique to Fermi-1 driver fuel and blankets), this activity will also provide valuable experience with process equipment systems and operating procedures. The principal objective of the electrometallurgical treatment development program is clearly seen in Figure I. The program is geared to the development and comprehensive demonstration of a technology that can be applied to the timely solution of a national problem, the disposal of DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel. The technology development and demonstration will be directed toward two fired types, metal and oxide, that together comprise over 90% of the DOE spent nuclear fuel inventory, as well as to development of a special application (basin sludge recovery and treatment) that will ameliorate a potential environmental problem at the Hanford site. The timing of the development program is very demanding, directed toward completion of the work so that a meaningful base of experience is at hand by the end of FYI998 to permit a reasoned decision on the application of the electrometallurgical treatment technique to the treatment of DOE spent fuel. Argonne National Laboratory is not proposing the shipment of spent fuel inventories to any particular site for treatment, but instead proposes to support the implementation of the technology at the sites where the spent fuel is now stored. Because the facility requirements and equipment costs for such installations are expected to be quite modest, possibly permitting the use of existing facilities in some cases, the electrometallurgical treatment technique is likely to represent the low-cost alternative for many of the spent fuel categories. This program plan does not include provisions for development of head-end processes that would facilitate the electrometallurgical treatment of Mel types other than metal and oxide. Among the fuel types not covered are two highly-enriched fuels, Naval reactor Mel and graphite fuels from the Fort St. Vrain and Peachbo~om reactors. The quantities of these fuels are significant, and the high level of U enrichment implies that treatment will be necessary before disposal. However, these are very stable fuels and they are likely to withstand extended interim ply storage without significant degradation. Hence, a decision on the method of treatment of Naval reactor and graphite fuels can be deferred until certain institutional and technological issues (including the development of the electrometallurgical treatment technology) can be resolved. A-12

OCR for page 53
~ OWG-~A~G~ SCION . . . . 1 1 1 . , Dev./lastall H`gh Throughput ER |, ' ' . . . . . reactor O N-Reactor ~ (Mk-V) P~Proc 1 ' ED Oxide Process Dev. ~ ' | TMI-2 Hot Demo. | , _ Programmatic Decision Point 1 1 | Hot Waste Treatment Operation. I; =Charact , FIGURE 1 Long -range schedule for development of electrometallurgical treatment technology. A-13

OCR for page 53