| Reprocessing background documents |
|
|
|
| Written by Gerald L. Rudolph | |||||||
| Saturday, 12 July 2008 | |||||||
 The Legacy of Reprocessing in the United Kingdom (no nukes perspective) Background, Status and Issues Related to the Regulation of Advanced Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities (pro nukes perspective)Comments by Tom Clements: The second document gives details of the history of reprocessing internationally and the current technologies being looked at under GNEP. Has a bit about accidents at reprocessing plants worldwide and goes into details about the design of the never-operated Barnwell reprocessing plant here in South Carolina, especially in Appendix A. Does not deal much with technical or political problems and reflects the thinking of the industry and government group which was consulted in its preparation. A good resource nonetheless. "Background, Status, and Issues Related to the Regulation of Advanced Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities" ACNW&M White Paper Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials Date Published: June 2008 ABSTRACT In February 2006, the Commission directed the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) to remain abreast of developments in the area of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, and to be ready to provide advice should the need arise. A white paper was prepared in response to that direction and focuses on three major areas: (1) historical approaches to development, design, and operation of spent nuclear fuel recycle facilities, (2) recent advances in spent nuclear fuel recycle technologies, and (3) technical and regulatory issues that will need to be addressed if advanced spent nuclear fuel recycle is to be implemented. This white paper was sent to the Commission by the ACNW&M as an attachment to a letter dated October 11, 2007 (ML072840119). In addition to being useful to the ACNW&M in advising the Commission, the authors believe that the white paper could be useful to a broad audience, including the NRC staff, the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, and other organizations interested in understanding the nuclear fuel cycle. A few things of interest: page xxvi – problems in capture of released radioactive gases Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to develop standards for radionuclide releases from recycle facilities and codified the results in Title 40, “Protection of Environment,” Part 190, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 190). With the benefit of decades of hindsight, analysis now shows that the existing standard raises the following issues: – The factors by which 85Kr and 129I must be reduced are approximately 7-fold and 200-fold, respectively. The evaluation that resulted in these factors was based on effluent control technologies that were under development but were never completed. Thus, meeting the standard with available technologies may not be feasible. Page xxvii – reprocessing spent fuel from overseas? GNEP goals include having once-through and recycle facilities in the United States providing services (fuel supply, fuel take-back) as a primary component. With substantial amounts of U.S. fuel going to many other countries and being returned to the this country, a more focused relationship between the NRC and regulators in other countries might be desirable or necessary to ensure that U.S. fuels are acceptable internationally and that fuel irradiated in another country has an acceptable pedigree for its return. pages 96 & 97 – problems with reprocessed uranium (RepU) Recycled uranium is not as benign as natural uranium for two reasons. First, no separation process is perfect, and the uranium will contain trace amounts of radionuclides such as 99Tc and 237Np. These radionuclides can become concentrated in enrichment facilities and have been troublesome in the gaseous diffusion plants because they tend to deposit on internal surfaces. Such deposits can complicate maintenance activities to the point that gaseous diffusion plant operators have been reluctant to contaminate their plants with recycle uranium or have dedicated certain plants to recycle uranium enrichment. The current trend away from gaseous diffusion and toward gas centrifuge enrichment makes it much more economical to dedicate part of the plant to recycle uranium. The second difference between natural and recycle uranium is that the latter contains 236U and 232U. The former is an undesirable neutron poison that detracts from the value of the recycle uranium. The latter is present in very small quantities (typically around 1 ppb) but has a relatively short half-life (72 years), and one of its decay products emits a very energetic gamma ray which leads to higher occupational dose rates during fabrication than do those from natural uranium. Tom Clements Friends of the Earth Columbia, SC
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.25
3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved." |
|||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Post Office Box 7933