Advertisement

The Benefits of an Advanced Fast Reactor Fuel Cycle For Plutonium Management

  • W.H. Hannum
  • H.F. McFarlane
  • D.C. Wade
  • R.N. Hill
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (ASDT, volume 15)

Abstract

The United State has no program to investigate advanced nuclear fuel cycles for the largescale consumption of plutonium from military and civilian sources. The official U.S. position has been to focus on means to bury spent nuclear fuel from civilian reactors and to achieve the spent fuel standard for excess separated plutonium, which is considered by policy makers to be an urgent international priority. Recently, the National Research Council published a long-awaited report on its study of potential separation and transmutation technologies (STATS), which concluded that in the nuclear energy phase-out scenario that they evaluated, transmutation of plutonium and long-lived radioisotopes would not be worth the cost. However, at the American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting in June, 1996, the STATS panelists endorsed further study of partitioning to achieve superior waste forms for burial, and suggested that any further consideration of transmutation should be in the context of energy production, not of waste management.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has an active program for the short-term disposition of excess fissile material and a “focus area” for safe, secure stabilization, storage and disposition of plutonium, but has no current programs for fast reactor development.

Nevertheless, sufficient data exist to identify the potential advantages of an advanced fast reactor metallic fuel cycle for the long-term management of plutonium. Some of the key advantages are:
  1. 1.

    Tens of tonnes of plutonium could be quickly secured in a single reactor system.

     
  2. 2.

    Use of a metal alloy fuel would allow economic fuel recycling at any scale to match the energy production requirements.

     
  3. 3.

    All actinides would remain in the fuel cycle, out of the waste stream.

     
  4. 4.

    Throughout the fuel cycle, the plutonium would remain in a highly radioactive environment equivalent to the spent fuel standard.

     
  5. 5.

    he net rate of plutonium consumption could be controlled to meet future energy requirements.

     
  6. 6.

    Because all actinides fission in the fast spectrum, the more radiotoxic transuranic isotopes would not build up as they do in a thermal spectrum.

     
  7. 7.

    Specific fission products would be partitioned into the waste forms in which they would be most stable for disposal.

     

Keywords

Fast Reactor Fission Product Conversion Ratio Fuel Cycle American Nuclear Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Shapar, H. K.; The Policy of the United States with Respect to the Reprocessing of Spent Fuel, Global ′95, International Conference on Evaluation of Emerging Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems, September 11-14, 1995 Palais des Congres, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Committee on International Security and Arms Control, Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium, National Academy of Sciences; Washington, DC 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albright, D., Berkhout, F. and Walker; William; (1992). World Inventory of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium, Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sutcliffe, W.G., et al; A Perspective on the Dangers of Plutonium, UCRL-JC-11825, April, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carson, M.; The Explosive Properties of Reactor-Grade Plutonium, Science and Global Security, 4, 1993, pp. 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barre, B.; Perspectives for Long-Term Plutonium Utilization, Global ′95, International Conference on Evaluation of Emerging Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems, September 11-14, 1995 Palais des Congres, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Starr, C.; Global Energy and Electricity Futures, In Energy, 18(3), 1993, pp. 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    U.S. Department of Energy; (1996). Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, February; DOE/EIS-0229-D.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeVolpi, A.; (1986). Fissile Materials and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation. Annual Review of Nuclear Particle Science, 36, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldman, D.J.; (1994). Some Implications of Using IFR High-Transuranic Plutonium in a Proliferant Nuclear Weapons Program, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Document COTDU-94-0199.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laurent, J. and Giraud, J.; Plutonium Recycling, a Mature Civilian Industry and a Key Contribution to the Weapons-Plutonium Inventory Disposition Issue; Global ′95, International Conference on Evaluation of Emerging Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems, September 11-14, 1995 Palais des Congres, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feinroth, G. J. and Majumdar, D.; An Overview of the AIROX Process and Its Potential for Nuclear Fuel Recycle, Proceedings of the International Conference and Technology Exhibition on Future Nuclear Systems: Emerging Fuel Cycles and Waste Disposal Options, p. 709 Seattle, WA, 12-17 September.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hannum, W.H., Wade, D.C., McFarlane, H.F. and Hill, R.N.; Nonproliferation and Safeguards Aspects of the IFR; Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 31, No. 1,2 pp. 203–217, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. AEC (1967). Civilian Nuclear Power: A Report to the President, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and Civilian Nuclear Power, the 1967 Supplement to the 1962 Report to the President.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quinn, J. E., Magee, P. M., Thompson, M. L., and Wu, T.; ALMR Fuel Cycle Flexibility Proc. Physics Studies of Weapons Plutonium Disposition in the Integral Fast Reactor Closed Fuel Cycle, American Power Conf., 55, 1079 (1993).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hannum, W.H. and Wade, D.C.; (1993). Incorporation of Excess Weapons Material into the IFR Fuel Cycle. Proceedings of the International Conference on Future Nuclear systems; Emerging Fuel Cycles and Waste Disposal Options, p. 812, Seattle, WA, 12-17 September.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hannum, W.H. and Lineberry, M.J.; (1993). Flexible Plutonium Management with IFR Technology. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society 69, 91.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uranium: Resources Production and Demand (Paris: PECD/NEA, 1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeGalassus, B.; (1994). Perspectives on U.S. Plutonium Policy. International Policy Forum: Management and Disposition of Nuclear Weapons Materials, Leesburg, VA, 8-11 March.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murogov, V.M.; (1994). Beyond Weapons-A Plan to Convert Weapons Grade Fissile Materials to Commercial Use, International Policy Forum: Management and Disposition of Nuclear Weapons Materials, Leesburg, VA, 8-11 March.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation; Committee on Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems; Board on Radioactive Waste Management; Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources; National Research Council.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hill, R. N., Wade, D. C., Fujita, E. K. and Khalil, H.; Physics Studies of Higher Actinide Consumption in an LMR, Int. Conf. on the Physics of Reactors, Marseille, France, April 23-27, 1990, p. 1–83.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cockey, C. L., Wu, T. A., Lipps, J. and Hill, R. N.; Higher Actinide Transmutation in the ALMR, Proc. Conf. on Future Nuclear Systems, Seattle, Washington, September 12-17, 1993,p. 123.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hill, R. N.; LMR Design Concepts for Transuranic Management in Low Sodium Void Worth Cores; Proc. Int. Conf. on Fast Reactors and Related Fuel Cycles, Kyoto, Japan, October 28 — November 1, 1991, p. 19.1–1.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hill, R. N., Kawashima, M., Arie, K., and Suzuki, M.; Calculational Benchmark Comparisons for a Low Sodium Void Worth Actinide Burner Core Design, Proc. Mtg. on Advances in Reactor Physics, Charleston, South Carolina, March 8-11, 1992, p. 1–313.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hill, R.N., Wade, D.C., Liaw, J.R. and Fujita, E.K.; Physics Studies of Weapons Plutonium Disposition in the Integral Fast Reactor Closed Fuel Cycle, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 121, 17(1995).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grimm, K. N., Hill, R. N. and Wade, D. C.; An Evaluation of Waste Radiotoxicity Reduction for a Fast Burner Reactor Closed Fuel Cycle — NEA Benchmark Results; Proc. Int. Conf. on Evaluation of Emerging Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems, Versailles, France, September 11-14, 1995, Vol. I, p. 172.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hannum, W.H., Wade, D. and Stanford, G; Self-Protection in Dry Recycle Technologies; UCRL-ID-124105; Global ′95, International Conference on Evaluation of Emerging Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems, September 11-14, 1995 Palais des Congres, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wymer, R.G., Bengelsdorf, H.D., Choppin, G.R., Coops, M.S., Guon, J., Pillary, K.K.S. and Williams, J.D.; (1992). An Assessment of the Proliferation Potential and International Implications of the Integral Fast Reactor, Martin Marietta, Report K/ITP-511.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Walter, C. E.; A Strategy For an Advanced Nuclear-Electric Sector—Proliferation-Resistant, Environmentally Sound, Economical; Global ′95, International Conference on Evaluation of Emerging Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems, September 11–14, 1995 Palais des Congres, Versailles, France.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • W.H. Hannum
    • 1
  • H.F. McFarlane
    • 1
  • D.C. Wade
    • 1
  • R.N. Hill
    • 1
  1. 1.Argonne National LaboratoryArgonneUSA

Personalised recommendations