Appendixes



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 77
Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment: Final Report Appendixes

OCR for page 77
Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment: Final Report This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page 77
Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment: Final Report APPENDIX A Committee Charge and Statements of Task The Committee on Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment has operated in three distinct phases. Each phase has had a charge and a statement of task that reflected the emphasis of the committee at that time. The committee’s charge and statement of task for phase three were clarified in a series of letters to the NRC from DOE. These letters are included in this appendix on pages 81 to 84. COMMITTEE CHARGE—PHASE ONE Hold a first meeting to receive briefings from representatives of the DOE and ANL, additional experts identified by the committee, and representatives of other relevant activities of the National Research Council and National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, and then prepare an interim report to address the question, “Do electrometallurgical techniques represent a potentially viable technology for DOE spent fuel treatment that warrants further research and development?” Study in more depth the advantages and disadvantages of continued R&D into electrometallurgical processing as a candidate technology for disposition of DOE spent nuclear fuel, specifically addressing the issues of technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, suitability of the metallic waste form for long-term storage or geologic disposal, and nonproliferation implications, and write a report on the committee’s assessments. Statement of Task—Phase One The Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology (BCST) will organize a committee of approximately 12 scientific and technological experts to carry out a fast-track study of pyrometallurgical techniques as potential technologies for DOE spent fuel treatment. BCST will also utilize the results of CISAC’s Reactor Panel report on disposition options for weapons plutonium. The BCST is well-suited to the proposed task, having institutional responsibility for the broad range of chemical issues including both chemistry and chemical engineering. The BCST previously organized the Separations Subpanel for the NRC Study on Separations Technologies and Transmutation Systems; that Subpanel conducted an evaluation of pyrometallurgical processing technologies from the perspective of spent fuel recycling.

OCR for page 77
Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment: Final Report This project has been discussed with both CISAC and BRWM and will be carried out with their assistance. CISAC and BRWM staff are included in the budget and will be involved in all phases of the project, beginning with identification of potential committee members with the necessary range of expertise. Early in the study, an interim report will address the question, do pyrometallurgical techniques represent a potentially viable technology for DOE spent fuel treatment that warrants further research and development? After completing its study, the committee will write a final report assessing the advantages and disadvantages of continued research and development of pyrometallurgical processing as a candidate technology for disposition of spent fuel. Specific issues to be addressed in the study include technical feasibility; cost-effectiveness; suitability of the metallic waste form for long-term storage or geologic disposal; and nonproliferation implications. COMMITTEE CHARGE—PHASE TWO Carry out an ongoing evaluation of Argonne National Laboratory’s (ANL’s) research and development (R&D) activity on electrometallurgical techniques for treatment of DOE spent fuel, including their specific application to Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) spent fuel. Evaluate the scientific and technological issues associated with extending this R&D program to handle plutonium should the DOE decide that an electrometallurgical treatment option for the disposition of excess weapons plutonium is worth pursuing. Statement of Task—Phase Two Under the oversight of the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology (BCST) the Committee on Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment will carry out two tasks. The first will be an ongoing evaluation of Argonne National Laboratorys R&D activity on electrometallurgical techniques for DOE spent fuel treatment, including their specific application to EBR-II spent fuel. The second task would be to evaluate the scientific and technological issues associated with extending this research and development program to handle plutonium, should the DOE decide that an electrometallurgical treatment option for the disposition of excess weapons plutonium is worth pursuing. COMMITTEE CHARGE—PHASE THREE Monitor the scientific and technical progress of the ANL program on electrometallurgical technology for the treatment of DOE spent nuclear fuel. Examine the viability of electrometallurgical treatment technology in light of technical progress in other possible treatment technologies. Evaluate the criteria by which the success of the demonstration project will be judged.

OCR for page 77
Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment: Final Report Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 October 31, 1997 Dr. Douglas J. Raber National Academy of Sciences National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue. N. W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Dear Dr. Raber: The Department is very pleased with the assessments on the Argonne National Laboratory electrometallurgical research and development activity carried out by the National Research Council, Committee on Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment. The Committee’s reports have been of considerable value to the Department in evaluating the technical progress of the electrometallurgical research program. The Commitee’s work thus far has covered three important areas: evaluating the viability of electrometallurgical technology for the treatment of DOE spent nuclear fuel and considering whether the technology warrants further research and development; conducting an ongoing evaluation of Argonne National Laboratory's R&D activity on electrometallurgical techniques for DOE spent fuel treatment, including their specific application to EBR-II spent fuel; and evaluating the scientific and technological issues associated with extending this research and development program to handle plutonium, should the DOE decide that an electrometallurgical treatment option for the disposition of excess weapons plutonium is worth pursuing. As the Committee is aware, a variety of factors have combined to extend the schedule for the EBR-II spent fuel demonstration, which is now expected to be completed in June 1999. As a result, we request that your Committee continue its ongoing evaluation for the duration of this project. The Department requests that the Committee plan to issue a final report with final recommendations and observations subsequent to the completion of the demonstration project.

OCR for page 77
Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment: Final Report In addition, there may be other technologies available that might be relevant for treating some of the Department’s spent nuclear fuel. In response to these developments, we request that the Committee, as part of its ongoing evaluation, review the viability of electrometallurgical treatment technology in light of technical progress in other possible treatment technologies. It is the Department’s expectation that the Committee will assess the applicability of alternative technologies in considering the viability of electrometallurgical technology. Further, we request the Committee’s evaluation of criteria developed by Argonne National Laboratory and the Department to determine the success of the demonstration project. We request that the Committee’s consideration of alternative treatment technologies and of the success criteria be provided to the Department in the next of its reports to be completed by April 1998. Finally, we would like to recognize the excellent support provided to this activity by Dr. Tamae Wong over the last year. Dr. Wong's efforts have been appreciated by the Department and we will miss her as she moves on to her next assignment with the Council. We appreciate the Council’s support in continuing the evaluation of the electrometallurgical treatment research program. Please call me on (202) 5866630 should you have any questions. Sincerely, William D. Magwood, IV Associate Director for Planning and Analysis Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

OCR for page 77
Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment: Final Report Department of Energy Germantown, MD 20874-1290 February 12, 1998 Dr. Douglas J. Raber National Academy of Sciences National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Dear Dr. Raber: We are pleased that the National Research Council, “Committee on Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment,” is continuing its assessments of Argonne National Laboratory's electrometallurgical research and development activities, pursuant to our letter of October 31, 1997. We appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with your staff in planning the committee’s future activities. To confirm these recent agreements between our staffs, we request that the committee include an assessment of the applicability of a “no-treatment” option in its review of alternatives to the electrometallurgical technology for the disposition of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) spent nuclear fuel. Such an option could involve use of a canister and overpack or some other technology to allow emplacement of the EBR-II spent fuel in a geologic repository without treatment of the fuel. We will identify experts to present this disposition option to the committee at the March 16-17, 1998, sessions to address alternative technologies. We look forward to the committee’s consideration of alternative treatment technologies to be provided to the Department in the next committee report. Please call me at (301) 903-2915 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert G. Lange, Associate Director for Facilities Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

OCR for page 77
Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment: Final Report Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 August 19, 1998 Dr. Douglas J. Raber National Academy of Sciences National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Dear Dr Raber: As you requested, we are pleased to clarify the intent of the current task under which the Committee on Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment is reviewing alternatives to electrometallurgical treatment. In a letter to In a letter to you from Mr. William Magwood dated October 31, 1997, we asked the committee to “review the viability of electrometallurgical treatment technology in light of technical progress in other possible treatment technologies.” We intended that this review be undertaken specifically within the context of Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR)-II sodium-bonded spent fuel since we are responsible for its dispositioning and are pursuing activities to support a Department of Energy decision on its treatment. This intent was also reflected in my letter to you dated February 12, 1998, which asked that the committee “include an assessment of the applicability of a ‘no-treatment’ option in its review of alternatives to the electrometallurgical technology for the disposition of EBR-II spent nuclear fuel.” We appreciate the council’s support in continuing the evaluation of electrometallurgical research and hope this information is beneficial to your efforts to expeditiously publish the results of this review. Please call me at (301) 903-2915 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert G. Lange, Associate Director for Nuclear Facilities Management Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology