scholarly journals Used Fuel Disposition Campaign – Objectives, Mission, Plans and Current Activities

2012 ◽  
Vol 1475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McMahon ◽  
Peter Swift ◽  
Ken Sorenson ◽  
Mark Nutt ◽  
Mark Peters
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Technology Development ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Radioactive Material ◽  
Fundamental Aspect ◽  
Geologic Repository ◽  
Used Nuclear Fuel ◽  
High Level

ABSTRACTThe safe management and disposition of used nuclear fuel and/or high level nuclear waste is a fundamental aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle. The United States currently utilizes a once-through fuel cycle where used nuclear fuel is stored on-site in either wet pools or in dry storage systems with ultimate disposal in a deep mined geologic repository envisioned. However, a decision not to use the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository will result in longer interim storage at reactor sites than previously planned. In addition, alternatives to the once-through fuel cycle are being considered and a variety of options are being explored under the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fuel Cycle Technologies Program.These two factors lead to the need to develop a credible strategy for managing radioactive wastes from any future nuclear fuel cycle in order to provide acceptable disposition pathways for all wastes regardless of transmutation system technology, fuel reprocessing scheme(s), and/or the selected fuel cycle. These disposition paths will involve both the storing of radioactive material for some period of time and the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste.To address the challenges associated with waste management, the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy established the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign in the summer of 2009. The mission of the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign is to identify alternatives and conduct scientific research and technology development to enable storage, transportation, and disposal of used nuclear fuel and wastes generated by existing and future nuclear fuel cycles. The near-and long-term objectives of the Fuel Cycle Technologies Program and its’ Used Fuel Disposition Campaign are presented.

Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program, Used Fuel Disposition Campaign Objective, Mission, Plans, and Activity Status

2010 ◽  
Vol 1265 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Mark Nutt ◽  
Mark Peters ◽  
Peter Swift ◽  
Kevin McMahon ◽  
Ken Sorenson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research And Development ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Radioactive Material ◽  
Fundamental Aspect ◽  
Geologic Repository ◽  
Used Nuclear Fuel

AbstractThe safe management and disposition of used nuclear fuel and/or high level nuclear waste is a fundamental aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle. The United States currently utilizes a once-through fuel cycle where used nuclear fuel is stored on-site in either wet pools or in dry storage systems with ultimate disposal in a deep mined geologic repository envisioned. However, a decision not to use the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository will result in longer interim storage at reactor sites than previously planned. In addition, alternatives to the once-through fuel cycle are being considered and a variety of options are being explored under the U.S. Department of Energy's Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program.These two factors lead to the need to develop a credible strategy for managing radioactive wastes from any future nuclear fuel cycle in order to provide acceptable disposition pathways for all wastes regardless of transmutation system technology, fuel reprocessing scheme(s), and/or the selected fuel cycle. These disposition paths will involve both the storing of radioactive material for some period of time and the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste.To address the challenges associated with waste management, the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy established the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign within its Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program in the summer of 2009. The mission of the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign is to identify alternatives and conduct scientific research and technology development to enable storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel and wastes generated by existing and future nuclear fuel cycles. The near-and long-term objectives of the Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program and it's Used Fuel Disposition Campaign are presented.

scholarly journals The Need for Integrating the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle in the United States of America

MRS Advances ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (19) ◽  
pp. 991-1003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evaristo J. Bonano ◽  
Elena A. Kalinina ◽  
Peter N. Swift
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Dry Storage ◽  
The Us

ABSTRACTCurrent practice for commercial spent nuclear fuel management in the United States of America (US) includes storage of spent fuel in both pools and dry storage cask systems at nuclear power plants. Most storage pools are filled to their operational capacity, and management of the approximately 2,200 metric tons of spent fuel newly discharged each year requires transferring older and cooler fuel from pools into dry storage. In the absence of a repository that can accept spent fuel for permanent disposal, projections indicate that the US will have approximately 134,000 metric tons of spent fuel in dry storage by mid-century when the last plants in the current reactor fleet are decommissioned. Current designs for storage systems rely on large dual-purpose (storage and transportation) canisters that are not optimized for disposal. Various options exist in the US for improving integration of management practices across the entire back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Overview of the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Waste Forms Development

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Gray ◽  
John Vienna ◽  
Patricia Paviet
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
High Level Waste ◽  
Fuel Cycles ◽  
Waste Forms ◽  
The U.S

In order to maintain the U.S. domestic nuclear capability, its scientific technical leadership, and to keep our options open for closing the nuclear fuel cycle, the Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) invests in various R&D programs to identify and resolve technical challenges related to the sustainability of the nuclear fuel cycle. Sustainable fuel cycles are those that improve uranium resource utilization, maximize energy generation, minimize waste generation, improve safety and limit proliferation risk. DOE-NE chartered a Study on the evaluation and screening of nuclear fuel cycle options, to provide information about the potential benefits and challenges of nuclear fuel cycle options and to identify a relatively small number of promising fuel cycle options with the potential for achieving substantial improvements compared to the current nuclear fuel cycle in the United States. The identification of these promising fuel cycles helps in focusing and strengthening the U.S. R&D investment needed to support the set of promising fuel cycle system options and nuclear material management approaches. DOE-NE is developing and evaluating advanced technologies for the immobilization of waste issued from aqueous and electrochemical recycling activities including off-gas treatment and advanced fuel fabrication. The long-term scope of waste form development and performance activities includes not only the development, demonstration, and technical maturation of advanced waste management concepts but also the development and parameterization of defensible models to predict the long-term performance of waste forms in geologic disposal. Along with the finding of the Evaluation and Screening Study will be presented the major research efforts that are underway for the development and demonstration of waste forms and processes including glass ceramic for high-level waste raffinate, alloy waste forms and glass ceramics composites for HLW from the electrochemical processing of fast reactor fuels, and high durability waste forms for radioiodine.

scholarly journals Sustainability Features of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (10) ◽  
pp. 2377-2398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Passerini ◽  
Mujid Kazimi
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Base Line ◽  
Energy Potential ◽  
Fuel Cycle Analysis ◽  
The Impact

The nuclear fuel cycle is the series of stages that nuclear fuel materials go through in a cradle to grave framework. The Once Through Cycle (OTC) is the current fuel cycle implemented in the United States; in which an appropriate form of the fuel is irradiated through a nuclear reactor only once before it is disposed of as waste. The discharged fuel contains materials that can be suitable for use as fuel. Thus, different types of fuel recycling technologies may be introduced in order to more fully utilize the energy potential of the fuel, or reduce the environmental impacts and proliferation concerns about the discarded fuel materials. Nuclear fuel cycle systems analysis is applied in this paper to attain a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of fuel cycle alternatives. Through the use of the nuclear fuel cycle analysis code CAFCA (Code for Advanced Fuel Cycle Analysis), the impact of a number of recycling technologies and the associated fuel cycle options is explored in the context of the U.S. energy scenario over 100 years. Particular focus is given to the quantification of Uranium utilization, the amount of Transuranic Material (TRU) generated and the economics of the different options compared to the base-line case, the OTC option. It is concluded that LWRs and the OTC are likely to dominate the nuclear energy supply system for the period considered due to limitations on availability of TRU to initiate recycling technologies. While the introduction of U-235 initiated fast reactors can accelerate their penetration of the nuclear energy system, their higher capital cost may lead to continued preference for the LWR-OTC cycle.

scholarly journals Financing Strategies for a Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Shropshire ◽  
Jess Chandler
Keyword(s):  
Interest Rates ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sunk Costs ◽  
Government Ownership ◽  
Private Industry ◽  
Unit Costs ◽  
The Government

To help meet the nation’s energy needs, recycling of partially used nuclear fuel is required to close the nuclear fuel cycle, but implementing this step will require considerable investment. This report evaluates financing scenarios for integrating recycling facilities into the nuclear fuel cycle. A range of options from fully government owned to fully private owned were evaluated using DPL (Decision Programming Language 6.0), which can systematically optimize outcomes based on user-defined criteria (e.g., lowest life-cycle cost, lowest unit cost). This evaluation concludes that the lowest unit costs and lifetime costs are found for a fully government-owned financing strategy, due to government forgiveness of debt as sunk costs. However, this does not mean that the facilities should necessarily be constructed and operated by the government. The costs for hybrid combinations of public and private (commercial) financed options can compete under some circumstances with the costs of the government option. This analysis shows that commercial operations have potential to be economical, but there is presently no incentive for private industry involvement. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) currently establishes government ownership of partially used commercial nuclear fuel. In addition, the recently announced Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) suggests fuels from several countries will be recycled in the United States as part of an international governmental agreement; this also assumes government ownership. Overwhelmingly, uncertainty in annual facility capacity led to the greatest variations in unit costs necessary for recovery of operating and capital expenditures; the ability to determine annual capacity will be a driving factor in setting unit costs. For private ventures, the costs of capital, especially equity interest rates, dominate the balance sheet; and the annual operating costs, forgiveness of debt, and overnight costs dominate the costs computed for the government case. The uncertainty in operations, leading to lower than optimal processing rates (or annual plant throughput), is the most detrimental issue to achieving low unit costs. Conversely, lowering debt interest rates and the required return on investments can reduce costs for private industry.

A Perspective on the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Cycle

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Rodwell ◽  
Albert Machiels
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Yucca Mountain ◽  
Design Parameters ◽  
Geologic Repository ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Waste Products

There has been a resurgence of interest in the possibility of processing the US spent nuclear fuel, instead of burying it in a geologic repository. Accordingly, key topical findings from three relevant EPRI evaluations made in the 1990–1995 timeframe are recapped and updated to accommodate a few developments over the subsequent ten years. Views recently expressed by other US entities are discussed. Processing aspects thereby addressed include effects on waste disposal and on geologic repository capacity, impacts on the economics of the nuclear fuel cycle and of the overall nuclear power scenario, alternative dispositions of the plutonium separated by the processing, impacts on the structure of the perceived weapons proliferation risk, and challenges for the immediate future and for the current half-century. Currently, there is a statutory limit of 70,000 metric tons on the amount of nuclear waste materials that can be accepted at Yucca Mountain. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project analyzed emplacement of up to 120,000 metric tons of nuclear waste products in the repository. Additional scientific analyses suggest significantly higher capacity could be achieved with changes in the repository configuration that use only geology that has already been characterized and do not deviate from existing design parameters. Conservatively assuming the repository capacity postulated in the EIS, the need date for a second repository is essentially deferrable until that determined by a potential new nuclear plant deployment program. A further increase in technical capacity of the first repository (and further and extensive delay to the need date for a second repository) is potentially achievable by processing the spent fuel to remove the plutonium (and at least the americium too), provided the plutonium and the americium are then comprehensively burnt. The burning of some of the isotopes involved would need fast reactors (discounting for now a small possibility that one of several recently postulated alternatives will prove superior overall). However, adoption of processing would carry a substantial cost burden and reliability of the few demonstration fast reactors built to-date has been poor. Trends and developments could remove these obstacles to the processing scenario, possibly before major decisions on a second repository become necessary, which need not be until mid-century at the earliest. Pending the outcomes of these long-term trends and developments, economics and reliability encourage us to stay with non-processing for the near term at least. Besides completing the Yucca Mountain program, the two biggest and inter-related fuel-cycle needs today are for a nationwide consensus on which processing technology offers the optimum mix of economic competitiveness and proliferation resistance and for a sustained effort to negotiate greater international cooperation and safeguards. Equally likely to control the readiness schedule is development/demonstration of an acceptable, reliable and affordable fast reactor.

scholarly journals Categorization of Used Nuclear Fuel Inventory in Support of a Comprehensive National Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategy

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C Wagner ◽  
Joshua L Peterson ◽  
Don Mueller ◽  
Jess C Gehin ◽  
Andrew Worrall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Used Nuclear Fuel

Repository performance assessment and advanced fuel cycle models for input to decision making of options for nuclear waste and resource management

2006 ◽  
Vol 932 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.S. Small ◽  
C.H. Zimmerman ◽  
D.R. Parker ◽  
C. Robbins ◽  
A.E. Bond ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Dose Assessment ◽  
High Level Waste ◽  
Process Step ◽  
Advanced Fuel ◽  
High Level ◽  
Physical And Chemical

ABSTRACTA methodology and computer software is described which can be used to track the inventory of radionuclides as they are affected by various nuclear, physical and chemical processes during reactor, storage, effluent and disposal phases of the nuclear fuel cycle. Such a model is required to provide an assessment of economic, environmental and societal performance indicators which underpin decisions regarding options for the use and management and nuclear materials. An example generic deep repository model is described which can be used to provide an indicator of environmental performance of vitrified high level waste and UO2 and mixed oxide (MOX) spent fuels. The assessment models highlight the significance of the I-129 fission product which necessitates the use of appropriate dose assessment models to be considered for each process step of the nuclear fuel cycle in order that a complete environmental assessment of process options can be determined.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document