|
Spent Nuclear Fuel, Office of Environmental Management, DOE. Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, EPA Reprocessing and Spent Nuclear Fuel Management at the Savannah River Site What is Reprocessing...and What Does It Mean For Canada? Spent Nuclear Fuel Backgrounders: Spent Fuel Types at Hanford
Uranium Enrichment: Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 33, Feb 2002 The Inventory of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste Assessments for Disposal of Radioactive Waste Materials Stored at DOE Facilities SRS Spent Nuclear Fuel Program Spent Nuclear Fuel Forum: RELATED TERMS The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: The Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) Why Is MOX Fuel Transported Between Europe and Japan http://www.cogema.fr/cogema/uk/cogeagen00.nsf/vselectdossier/lioh-53sg7y?opendocument West Valley Site: 1966-1972 Only U.S. Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facility
CONVERSION, ENRICHMENT AND FUEL FABRICATION Uranium oxide concentrate from mining is not significantly radioactive - barely more so than the granite used in buildings. It is refined to form "yellowcake" (U3O8), then converted to uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6). As a gas, it undergoes enrichment to increase the U-235 content from 0.7% to about 3.5%. It is then turned into a hard ceramic oxide (UO2) for assembly as reactor fuel elements. The main by-product of enrichment is depleted uranium, principally the U-238 isotope, which is stored, either as UF6 or as U3O8. Some is used in applications where its extremely high density makes it valuable, such as the keels of yachts. It is also used (with recycled plutonium) for making mixed oxide fuel (see below) and to dilute highly-enriched uranium from weapons stockpiles which is now being redirected to become reactor fuel. MANAGING HLW FROM SPENT FUEL Storage pond for spent fuel at UK reprocessing plant HLW from reprocessing UK, French, Japanese and German spent comprises highly-radioactive fission products and some transuranic elements with long-lived radioactivity. It generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling. This is vitrified into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass, encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders about 1.3 metres high and stored for eventual disposal deep underground. But if spent reactor fuel is not reprocessed, it will still contain all the highly radioactive isotopes, and then the entire fuel assembly is treated as HLW. After 40-50 years the heat and radioactivity have fallen to one thousandth of the level at removal. This provides a technical incentive to delay disposal until a low level of about 0.1% of the original radioactivity is reached. After storage for about 40 years the spent fuel assemblies are ready for encapsulation and permanent disposal underground. Direct disposal has been chosen by the US, Switzerland and Sweden, although in Sweden it will be recoverable if future generations come to see it as a resource. Increasingly, reactors are using fuel enriched to over 4% U-235 and burning it longer, to end up with less than 0.5% U-235 in the spent fuel. This provides less incentive to reprocess. RECYCLING FUEL Any spent fuel will still contain some of the original U-235 as well as various plutonium isotopes which have been formed inside the reactor core. In total these account for some 96% of the original uranium and over half of the original energy content (ignoring U-238). Reprocessing, undertaken in Europe and Russia, separates this uranium and plutonium from the wastes so that they can be recycled for re-use in a nuclear reactor as a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. This is the "closed fuel cycle". Plutonium arising from reprocessing comprises only about 1% of commercial spent fuel. It is recycled through a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication plant where it is mixed with depleted uranium oxide to make fresh fuel. European reactors currently use over 5 tonnes of plutonium a year in fresh MOX fuel, although all reactors routinely burn much of the plutonium which is continually formed in the core by neutron capture. The use of MOX simply means that some plutonium is incorporated into fresh fuel. (Plutonium arising from the civil nuclear fuel cycle is not suitable for bombs. It contains far too much of the Pu-240 isotope because of the length of time the fuel has spent in the reactor.) Major commercial reprocessing plants operate in France and the UK, with a capacity of some 4,700 tonnes a year and cumulative civilian experience of 60,000 tonnes over 40 years. These also undertake reprocessing for utilities in other countries, notably Japan, which has made over 140 shipments of spent fuel to Europe since 1979. At present most Japanese spent fuel is reprocessed in Europe, with the vitrified waste and the recovered U and Pu (as MOX) being returned to Japan to be recycled. Russia also reprocesses some of its spent fuel as well as fuel from Soviet-designed reactors in other countries. COST OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT Financial provisions are made for managing all kinds of civilian radioactive waste. The cost of managing and disposing of nuclear power plant wastes represents about 5% of the total cost of the electricity generated. Many nuclear utilities are required by governments to put aside a levy (eg 0.1 cents per kilowatt hour in the USA) to provide for management and disposal of wastes. So far some US$ 18 billion had been committed to the US waste fund by electricity consumers. DISPOSING OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTES In 2001 there was about 250,000 tonnes of spent fuel in storage, much of it at reactors. Annual arisings of spent fuel are about 12,000 tonnes, and 3000 tonnes of this goes for reprocessing. Final disposal is therefore not urgent in any logistics sense. France is furthest ahead with preparation for HLW disposal. In 1989 and 1992 it commissioned commercial plants to vitrify HLW left over from reprocessing oxide fuel, although there are adequate facilities elsewhere, notably in the UK and Belgium. The capacity of these western European plants is 2,500 canisters (1000 t) a year, and some have been operating for two decades. Loading silos with canisters containing vitrified high-level waste in UK, each disc on the floor covers a silo holding ten canisters The Australian Synroc (synthetic rock) is a more sophisticated way to immobilize such waste, and this process may eventually come into commercial use for civil wastes (it is curently being developed for US military wastes). The process of selecting appropriate deep final repositories is now under way in several countries with the first expected to be commissioned some time after 2010. Sweden is well advanced with plans for direct disposal of spent fuel, since its Parliament decided that this is acceptably safe, using existing technology. The US has opted for a final repository in Nevada. There is also a proposal for an international HLW repository in optimum geology - Australia or Russia are possible locations. To date there has been no practical need for final HLW repositories, as surface storage for 30-50 years is first required so that heat and radioactivity can dissipate to levels which make handling easier.
SOURCES: OECD NEA, 1996, Radioacvtive waste Management in Perspective Source: Uranium Information Centre, Ltd www.uic.com.au/nip09.htm DOE Supports Plan Similar To NFRC Plan Ed Sproat, DOE manager for the Yucca Mountain Project supports a public/private partnership to handle nuclear waste. Clinton Crackel Letter To The Editor The letters to the editor below describe the current state of nuclear waste management and the problems being encountered in implementing approved solutions Energy Official Grilled on Nuclear Reprocessing Plant Funding A key House appropriator questioned an Energy Department official today about whether the Bush administration intentionally withheld information about a proposal to expand the mission of a Cold War-era nuclear reprocessing facility. The proposal would allow operations to continue at H-Canyon — the nation’s last major nuclear reprocessing facility — at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. It could cost upward of $4.6 billion over the next decade. Peter J. Visclosky, D-Ind., chairman of the Energy-Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said the department made no mention of the plan for H-Canyon in documents provided to the committee in October, nor did it discuss the matter in a meeting with staff on Jan. 31. The committee has been asking for information on how the department plans to consolidate nuclear materials at H-Canyon and other facilities for more than a year. H-Canyon is one of many initiatives in the fiscal 2008 budget flagged by Visclosky, who has called the department’s record on handling major projects “abysmal.” Visclosky also fears that money for the project could come at the expense of environmental cleanup and other goals. Source: CQ Today Midday Update By Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502229.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601700.html The Bush administration is preparing a plan to expand civilian nuclear energy at home and abroad while taking spent fuel from foreign countries and reprocessing it, in a break with decades of U.S. policy, according to U.S. and foreign officials briefed on the initiative. The United States has adamantly opposed reprocessing spent fuel from civilian reactors since the 1970s because it would produce material that could be used in nuclear weapons. But the Bush program, envisioned as a multi-decade effort dubbed the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, would invest research money to develop technologies intended to avoid any such risk, the officials said. The program has been the subject of intense debate within the administration, and although a consensus has been reached about the direction, a senior official said it will not be ready for Bush to announce in his State of the Union address Tuesday. Even the discussion has stirred concerns among nuclear specialists and some members of Congress who consider it an expensive venture that relies on unproven concepts and could increase the danger of proliferation. The notion of accepting other countries' spent fuel at a time when the United States has had trouble disposing of its own nuclear waste could also prove highly controversial. But a small initial investment of money has been programmed into the administration's federal budget plan to be sent to Capitol Hill in two weeks. Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) said yesterday that he expects the White House to send accompanying legislation in February. "I expect a draft bill from the administration next month on spent nuclear fuel," he said. "I will introduce that bill on behalf of the president, hold a hearing on it and mark it up in committee this spring. I hope it will include a nuclear fuel recycling component. If it doesn't, well, I have been a career-long proponent of nuclear fuel recycling and I intend to pursue it aggressively." Advocates use the word "recycling" to describe an advanced form of reprocessing that, instead of separating plutonium that can be used in bombs from spent fuel, would produce a mixed-oxide fuel too radioactive for terrorists to handle. Such fuel, called MOX, could be used in special reactors that exist in France but not in the United States. Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit think tank that studies environmental and security issues, said U.N. nuclear inspectors would not make a distinction between that material or the kind of separated plutonium the world is worried Iran might get. "We think they are putting a fig leaf on it by calling it proliferation-resistant and saying that it's not really reprocessing, so concerns about proliferation risks won't be valid," he said. "But if we develop something that we call proliferation-resistant and it really isn't, then other countries are going to claim rights to this technology. If it's really proliferation-resistant, would we let Iran have it?" The fuel proposal is part of a broader push by the president for domestic and global nuclear energy. With worldwide energy demands on the rise and U.S. reliance on foreign oil increasing, Bush has held out nuclear power as a solution that will not affect global warming. "We ought to have more nuclear power in the United States of America," Bush said in a speech last week in Loudoun County. "It's clean, it's renewable, it's safer than it ever was in the past." In a modern version of the Atoms for Peace program during President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration, officials said the administration envisions helping developing countries build small nuclear reactors that would produce about 5 to 10 percent of the energy generated by a typical reactor now on line in the United States. Some in Congress believe a global nuclear energy program is aimed at aiding the U.S. effort to build an alliance with India, which is eager for U.S. civilian nuclear technology. Two senior U.S. officials traveled last week to several countries, including Japan and Russia, to brief them about the initiative. At one session, according to a source who was present, the administration officials said the United States has finally moved on from the Three Mile Island nuclear incident in 1979 that paralyzed the industry for years. Bush has been briefed on the plan but has not given his final approval while diplomats consult with other nations, a senior administration official said. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman hinted at the initiative in a November speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The world will need much more energy in coming decades," he said, citing projections showing global demand increasing as much as 50 percent by 2025. "How do we meet this demand? How do we do it in a way that leaves all the nations of the earth safer and more secure? The search for answers to these questions increasingly points in one direction: nuclear energy." Rather than just provide nuclear fuel to other countries that want to have their own reactors, Bodman suggested, the United States would also take back the fuel once it has been spent. "In the longer term, we see fuel-cycle states offering cradle-to-grave fuel-cycle services, leasing fuel for power reactors and then taking it back for reprocessing and ultimate disposition." The main purpose for reprocessing spent fuel is to extract the radioactive plutonium within it and use that to fuel a reactor. But the process is considered dangerous, and many countries gave up civilian reprocessing years ago. Officials briefed on the Bush plan said $250 million -- less than requested by the Energy Department -- will be included in the fiscal 2007 budget in a down payment on what they expect to be billions of dollars of spending. Among other things, it would pay for a pilot plant, possibly at the department's Savannah River facility in South Carolina, to test chemical reprocessing. If the program goes forward as planned, the domestic nuclear industry stands to reap hundreds of millions of dollars. U.S. officials said they are interested in developing reactors that would not produce spent fuel that could be accessed by recipient countries. One model is a self-contained reactor that cannot be opened, is never refueled and is removed when it runs out of energy. Another, known as a pebble-bed reactor, has been under development in Germany and South Africa and likewise would not have fuel that could be used for weapons. Staff writer Justin Blum contributed to this report. US Cancels Russian Nuclear Deal Sept 2008 - - The Bush administration has cancelled the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with Russia. It was only in May that President Bush sent the to Congress for its approval. The deal would have meant billions of dollars in earnings for Russia for becoming the center of a nuclear reprocessing business of spent fuel from American-supplied reactors around the world. The decision is probably due to Russia's invasion of Georgia and to emphasize the point, the State Department announced a $1 billion foreign aid package for the West-leaning Georgia. NFR Coalition Cochair Visits La Hague Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Coalition Cochair Norris McDonald toured the La Hague nuclear fuels reprocessing facility on November 26, 2007. The tour included a visit to the spent fuel storage pool, vitrification facility and control room. The facility is owned and operated by Areva.
Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant Urged for Yucca Mountain Site Provide Predictable Funding for Yucca Mountain [Press Conference] Washington, DC – The Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Coalition joined the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC) at a press conference on Feb 23, 2003 to call for the reform of the Nuclear Waste Fund. The NWF needs to be reformed to ensure adequate annual appropriations for Yucca Mountain to be completed by 2010. To date, the Department of Energy (DOE) has been under funded at a level of approximately $95 million when a $1 billion annual appropriation is needed to assure timely completion of the project. In order to meet its 2010 deadline, the DOE must file a licensing application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by 2004 for permission to construct the facility. A failure to meet the 2010 deadline will significantly increase program costs and will expose DOE to additional litigation based upon failure to fulfill its legal responsibilities. The Nuclear Waste Fund is a federal fund designed to provide money to site, design, construct, and operate a deep geologic repository for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The fund was authorized under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. A one mill (one tenth of a cent) per kilowatt-hour fee is charged to ratepayers for electricity generated by nuclear reactors after April 1983. The nation’s ratepayers pay about $1 billion per year into the NWF and the fund currently has about $20 billion. Reforming the NWF funding process would end the present practice of Congress appropriating less than 10 cents of every dollar added to the program each year. NWSC was formed to promote the storage and disposal of civilian radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. The NWSC was established by three states in 1993 due to a lack of progress by the U.S. DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Management and has since grown to include state utility regulators, state attorneys general, electric utilities and associate members representing 44 organizations from 25 states. Coalition CoChair Clinton Crackel, April 2, 2003: "I was informed by my daughter this past weekend that my oldest son is in Kuwait. Most likely, he's in Iraq by now. He's attached to the 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, US Army. He's a team leader on a M2 Bradley crew. As far as I know, my second son is still in Germany with the Army's 1st Infantry Division." Clinton Crackel Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Coalition has been invited to be the keynote speaker at the Cliffbreaker's Riverside Resort in Rockford, Illinois on May 7, 2008. The subject of the presentation is the United States Nuclear Waste Management Agency. The event is the 10th Annual Midwest Emergency Preparedness & Response Conference. One of the URLs is http://www.winn-lepc.org. Mr. CrackeI was invited by the Winnebego County Sheriff's Department, Emergncy Services and Disaster Agency. The sponsor of the event is the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), which has members from the County and State government in the local area. It also has members from local corporations, medical facilities and schools.
A modified version of my e-mail reply to U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, Assistant Senate Majority Leader, regarding the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2007 is to be published as a letter to the editor in the September/October edition of ANS' Radwaste Solutions Magazine. I have also attached the Word format version for those of you who may not have access to Radwaste Solutions Magazine. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
