No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Collocation and Integration of Back-End Fuel Cycle Facilities with the Repository: Implications for Waste Forms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 November 2012
Abstract
The organization of the fuel cycle is a legacy of World War II and the cold war. Fuel cycle facilities were developed and deployed without consideration of the waste management implications. This led to the fuel cycle model of an isolated single-purpose geological repository for disposal of wastes shipped from distant processing facilities. There is an alternative: collocation and integration of reprocessing and other backend facilities with the repository. Such an option alters waste form functional requirements by reducing storage and transport requirements. This, in turn, broadens the choice of waste forms by relaxing the incentives to minimize waste volumes. Waste forms can be chosen primarily on meeting two goals: repository performance and minimizing costs. Less restrictive waste volume constraints enable termination of safeguards on all wastes, enable use of solubility-limited waste forms, and reduce radiation damage as a waste form limitation. The implications of such changes in waste form requirements are discussed.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012
References
REFERENCES
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, http://brc.gov/ (2012).Google Scholar
Kazimi, M., Moniz, E., Forsberg, C. W., et al. ., The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2011).Google Scholar
Forsberg, C. W., “Coupling the Backend of Fuel Cycles with Repositories, Nuclear Technology, 180 (2) November (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haire, M. J., “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Costs,” Advances in Nuclear Fuel Management III, Hilton Head, South Carolina, American Nuclear Society Topical Meeting, October 5-8, 2003.Google Scholar
Haire, M. J., Ritter, G. L., and Tomlinson, R.E., “The Economics of Reprocessing Alternative Nuclear Fuels,” National American Institute of Chemical Engineers Meeting, San Francisco, California, November 25-29, 1979.Google Scholar
Long, J. T., Engineering for Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing, Gordon and Breach, Inc. (1967).Google Scholar
Gerber, M. S., A Brief History of the Purex and UO3 Facilities, WHC-MR-0437 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg, C. W., Theoretical Analysis and Preliminary Experiments on the Feasibility of Removing CO2 Containing C-14 Selectively with a Ca(OH)2 Slurry from a 85Kr-Contaminated HTGR Reprocessing Plant Off-Gas Stream, ORNL/TM-5825, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1977).Google Scholar
Linsley, G. and Fattah, A., “The Interface Between Nuclear Safeguards and Radioactive Waste Disposal: Emerging Issues,” IAEA Bulletin, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, February (1994).Google Scholar
Christensen, D. C. and Robinson, M. A., Development and Implementation of Attractiveness Level E Criteria and the Plutonium Disposition Methodology, LA-13425-MS Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Atomic Energy Agency, Guidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: INPRO Manual—Proliferation Resistance, IAEA-TECDOC-1575/Vol. 5 (2007).Google Scholar
International Atomic Energy Agency, Consultants’ Report on Meeting for Development of Technical Criteria for Termination of Safeguards for Material Categorized as Measured Discards, STR-251 (Rev. 2) (1990).Google Scholar
Forsberg, C. W., “Rethinking High-Level Waste Disposal: Separate Disposal of High-Heat Radionuclides (90Sr and 137Cs),” Nuclear Technology, 131(2): pp. 252–268, August 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SFR: Swedish Repository for Short-Lived Radioactive Wastes: SKB website: http://www.skb.se/Templates/Standard____25485.aspx.Google Scholar