Nuclear fuel cycle and reactor strategies : adjusting to new realities

306 Pages·1997·22.28 MB·English

by  International Atomic Energy Agency

XA9746007
IAEA-TECDOC-990
Nuclear fuel cycle
and reactor strategies:
Adjusting to new realities
Contributed papers
International Symposium held ni Vienna,6 -3 June 1997
organized by the
International Atomic Energy Agency
in co-operation with
the European Commission,
the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
and the Uranium Institute
o
December 1997
2 9 - 07
The IAEA doet osnn ormally maintain stockf so reportn sit his series.
However, microfiche copies of these reports can be obtained from
IN IS Clearinghouse
International Atomic Energy Agency
Wagramerstrass5e
001 Pxo.OB.
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Orders should eba ccompaniedy b prepaymenf ot Austrian Schillings 100,
in the form of a cheque or in the form of IAEA microfiche service coupons
which may be ordered separately from the INIS Clearinghouse.
e ohTriginating Sectiof noth is publica etIihAot nnEi A was:
Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section
International Atomic Energy Agency
Wagramerstrasse 5
001 xoBP.O .
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND REACTOR STRATEGIES:
W REAEADLNIJTUI ESOSTINTG
CONTRIBUTED PAPERS
IAEA, VIENNA, 1997
IAEA-TECDOC-990
ISSN 1011-4289
©IAEA, 1997
Printed by the IAEA in Austria
December 1997
FOREWORD
e hITnternational Symposiun moN uclear Fuel Cyd cnlRae eactor Strategies: Adjustinogt
w eN Realitiess aw held from6 ot 3 June 1997n i Vienna, Austria.s aw tI organizedeht yb
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEn Acio) -operation e wEhittuh ropean Commisseihont ,
Nuclear Energy Age OehntE fcoCy D (OECDe /UNhtrE daAnnai) um Institute (UI). More t0h0a3n
participants from more th0 ac4no un5 ot drrgineaas nizations took part.
The reason for organizing the symposium was to face the new realities in the nuclear fuel
octcy odcnmlo aecte onclw utohsw hiereo esnnnaeo sl ities shoue lbadd dre ehlsitsg fnehoIdt .
these objectives, international working groups prepared key issue papers on six topics that were
selected as the central themes for consideration at the symposium. An International Steering Group
composed of the representatives of 12 countries and three international organizations co-ordinated
the work of the six working groups.
Working Group 1 on "Global Energy Outlook" established assessments of the scenarios of
future requirementr osnf uclear energyo tp rovidea bae shwt irosfo ehort kfto her Working Groups.
Working Group 2 on "Present Status and Immediate Prospects of Plutonium Management"
dealt with the problems arising from growing stocks of separated plutonium, both from civilian and
military programmes.
Working Group 3 on "Future Fuel Cycle and Reactor Strategies" discussed the factors
influencing future reactor and fuel cycle concepts and the resulting trends for the next 50 years.
Working Group 4 on "Safety, Health and Environmental Implications of the Different Fuel
Cycles" assed scnsoeamd pe aohrvetde rall environmd ehnnetaaal lth efff edocitfs ferent systefmos
e hnt uclear fuel cycle.
Working Group 5 on "Non-proliferation and Safeguards Aspects" discussed the existing non-
pw rionliietfieanrtiavtieo sn.d rnFeugaritmhe erm tcoiorne ,sidered non-proliferation raospfect s
different fuel cycle options and for nuclear materials declared excess to defense needs.
Working Group 6 on "International Co-operation" assessed the types of international co-
operative activitid enasar rangemend tndsar ew conclusi eohft unrotsf ure.
Each of the six working groups wrote a key issue paper. These key issue papers are
publishe ad ssa eparate publication.
During the symposium, addresses and papers presented by leading experts and policy makers
provided additional informationn i these fieldsy ek e.hTi ssues were explored furthern i discussions
e aphpaf ar tenotdbixecy pl ni,epraatns,t swhich ho ehlptie egmd hhlaitgineh tbpro boletm s
addresn sdeieds einghe unphtcio nltlregi oacrife fs ue 0 neyhl5ee txac trynsc.il e Special emphasis
s ae pwhpltar ocnebodl ef omdi spositif oosne parated plutoniuf omci vil f oop rldiugntaion nium
originating e dfhirsotmm antlem fneoun ctlear weapons.
This TECDOC ce ophnattp aleilnrass presented, together wia tsh ue mshymtm faopryo sium
and a list of participants.
EDITORIAL NOTE
In preparing this publication for press, staff of the IAEA have made up the pages from the
original manusc srie sapauhtubs ettmvhh iyioeTtwrbtess d. t oenxnepcre eosssdsaerd ily reflect
those of the IAEA, the governments of the nominating Member States or the nominating
organizations.
Throughout the text names of Member States are retained as they were when the text was
compiled.
The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by
the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities
and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries.
The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as
registered) doest on implyy na intentiono t infringe proprietary rights,r on shoulde b ti construed
n a saendorsementr o recommendation eht no part of eht IAEA.
The authors are responsible for having obtained the necessary permission for the IAEA to
reproduce e,m starutaen rrsialoal tfe rom sources already prote yccbotepd yrights.
CONTENTS
Opening Session
Opening Address ................................................................9
H. Blix
Opening Address ................................................................ 15
S. Thompson
Opening Address ................................................................ 19
G. Clark
Opening Address ................................................................ 21
J.P. Contzen
Session I
Alternative long term strategies for sustainable development: Rapidly increasing electricity
consumption in Asian countries and future role of nuclear energy ...................... 29
N. Sagawa
Nuclear end menre aga2th1ye strt inaciles ntury ...................................3.4.. .
R.A. Krakowski, J.W. Davidson, C.G. Bathke,
E.D. Arthur, R.L. Wag.rnJer ,
Some aspects of nuclear power development in Russia and studies on its optimal
long term structure .....................................................5..6... .
N.I. Ermakov, V.M. Poplavsky, M.F. Troyanov, V.I. Oussanov,
A.N. Chebeskov, A. V. Malenkov, B.K. Gordeev
Session II
The US program for disposition of excess weapons plutonium ............................ 79
M. Bunn
e hTAIDA-MOX1 p rogram: Resule thFts fo rench-Russian studyn o peaceffuo eslu
plutonium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons .............................3.9.
N.N. Yego .KrEouvd ,ria. PvVotspelva . ,vPAsokyl y,akov,
X. O. uNCina ,mar. cSBaict ,a. BHrde r,nard
Experience with civil plutonium management: Technolod genyac onomics ..............50.1..
N. Zarimpas, G.H. Stevens
SesIsIioIn
Development potential rof thermal reactors dna their fuel cycles ..........................711
J.T. Rogers, H.L. Dodds, Jr., P.C. Florida, U. Gat, S. Kondo, N.S. Spinks
Fast reactors: R&D targets and outlook for their introduction ............................ 127
V. Poplavsky. B,B arre. K,A izawa
Fuel cycle technologies — The next 50 years ......................................... 139
L.N. Chamberlain, S.E. Ion, J. Patterson
e DhUTPIC alterna rtboivafce kend fuel cycle ..................................3..5.1.. .
J.S. Lee, M.S. Yang, H.S. Park. PB, oczar .J,S ullivan, R.D. Gadsby
Session IV
Risk associated wite hhtt ransporf to radioactive materiae hltf sniu el cycle ...............16.1.
F. Lange, J. Mairs, C. Niel
Radioactive material releases in the nuclear fuel cycle — Recent experience
and improvements ......................................................37.1..
C.J. Allan, P.J. Allsop, R.W. Anderson, C.R. Boss, S.E. Frost
Transmutation of radioactive waste: Effect on the nuclear fuel cycle ...................... 185
N.C. Rasmussen, T.H. Pigford
Radiologicad lna environmental aspectsf o fast reactor fuel cycle facilities ................59.1
A.R. Sundararajan, L. V. Krishnan, P. Rodriguez
SessVion
Safeguardin fogl arge scale reproceX pOslsMai nndntgas ............................3.02..
. HRow. e sBBLleduoyrn ,rg.oHewvsi . a,KHllu. eIrA ,zoui m, i
Safeguardingf o spent fuel conditioningd nad isposal ni geological repositories .............902.
H. Forsstrom. B,R ichter
Regional safeguards arrangements: The Argentina-Brazil experience ..................... 219
M. Marzo, H.L. Gonzales, M.C.L. Iskin,. H Vicens
Non-prolifd esarnafetaigoun ards aspf eaocltte srnative fuel cycle concepts .........1..3..2... .
P.J. Persiani
Session VI
Guide rheetls irpnooefsn sible managemef npotl utonium ...........................14.2...
P.H. Agrell
US-Russia ce doihosppteo rsnf aiwttoiiioeoan n pons grade fissile materials ........7.4..2.... .
H.R. Canter, D.A. McArthur, N. Yegorov, A. Zrodnikov
Nuclear energn yAi sd inraae gional co-operation ...................................55.2.
M. Ishii
International co-operation with reo graetrgd ional reposir troaordifieo sactive
waste disposal .............................................................. 261
P.J. Bredell, H.D. Fuchs
Intel-nationalization of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle: Problems and prospects ........ 271
. HEdckel
Closing the fuel cycle — Reaching a public consensus ................................. 279
B. Altshuler, F. Janouch, R. Wilson
Closing Session
Summae hrSt fyoy mposium ....................................................392..
P. Jelinek-Fink
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ....................................................... 305
OPENING SESSION
OPENING ADDRESS
H. Blix
Director General,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
Introduction
The concept of the nuclear fuel cycle emerged almost as early as the concept of using
controlled nuclear fissio ontg enerate electrics aiwwty tIi.d ely believed, amonge shstt cientifdinca
technical experts of that time, that a closed fuel cycle would be the most desirable option: spent fuel
from power reactors woul edbr eprocessed ndar ecovered plutonium woule dbr ecycles da fureofl
fast breeder reactors. Not only the experts but also people outside the technical elite were impressed
by the promise that the closed cycle would offer.
In the late 1970s the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) was conducted.
Forty countries and four international organizations were represented. By this time we were looking
at a gradually maturing technology which had produced "new realities" in terms of the technical
aspects of the fuel cycle, its economics and its proliferation aspects. INFCE showed that effective
measures can and should be taken both at the national and international levels and agreements
worked out to minimize the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons - without jeopardizing energy
e sdhueptvp erlliooeps mf enonu tclear enr eporegfay ceful pue e rIhpNrhteoFTs sfuCeolsEt .s ,
many of which are still valid today, were published in eight Working Group papers.
Som0 y2ee ars have elapsed since this stus cadwayr ried out. During this period further "new
realities" have emerged, which could not be foreseen, and it seems appropriate again to consider
various aspects of different nuclear fuel cycle options. That is why we are here today. The intention
is certainly not to repeat a comprehensive study like INFCE. Rather, in preparation of this
Symposiue hmtIA, EA Secretarin aitc, o-operation with Member Stad nteians ternational
organizas timaonhasd ,e effo oatrdtsd ress some specific issues concere nnhiuntcg lear fuel cycle.
e rhesTf utolhtes se efforts ewpbriel lsd ernentvaeide wed during this Symposium.
What are the further "new realities"?
Lee tmb riefly pointo t some significant "new realities".
ehnTu1c. lear power projections have been lowered
A first "new reality" is that over the past 20 years, the projections for global nuclear
electricity prode uyhcett ainroi n2 000 have been progressively revised downwa nrd1I98s0 ., when
the INFCE study was performed, world nuclear power capacity in the year 2000 was predicted to be
between 850 and 1200 GWe. However, at the end of 1996 the world's net nuclear capacity stood at
onlys i ti dna eWGa 153 lmost certain thatt i wille b ton greater than arounde ht yb eWG 083t urnfo
e hct entury. Prospecr otfns uclear power development beyone hdyt ear 200e ra0d iffereronft
different regions. Growf otnh uclear w peoonnwv siesira ged mainn lAiy sia, Cend tnEraaal stern
n siom Edeun rodapeev elopine gh Wctoe suntneItrrni esc .ou enhtnruitecs lear indussitry
reorienting towards provision of services. The lower than expected demand on uranium in
combination with revised estimates of cost-effective resources means that uranium supplies will last
much longer than earlier calculated
. 2 General developme fFnoBt R's deferred
A second "new reality" is that a commercialization of fast breeder reactors has not occurred.
Only France, Japan and Russia, strongly committed to nuclear power, continue to develop fast reactor
technology and India and China are also engaged in the development of this technology for future
deployment.n I addition, experimental studies ni era progress aimedt a using this technologyeht ni
near-terr mouf tilizing plutonium stoc dknbasu rning minor actinides, while resere vhftiu nrotgfu re
the option of breeding.
3. Closing the fuel cycle
A third "new re eacls hlitothiystt aet" o atdk nefun e slh oacylhdc.l e e eUhanrtltyi l 1970s,
many envisagede ht nuclear fuel cycle eht ffo uturn a eeob ot rderly sequencef o processes beginning
with uranium mining, milling and conversion followed by fuel enrichment, fuel fabrication, and
power generation. This cycle would then be completed by reprocessing, recycling of plutonium and
uranium otf ast reactors. Cloe sfhuut rfeoel cycle would re eeshtuf nfliet f copt ielvsuuet oniudmna,
minimization of waste. In short, there would be a long-term, competitive, if not cheap, source of
energy, with the added bonus of a high degree of energy independence once all components were in
place.
e hpTresent situa ethbitoa tcan k e-fheut nefodl cycle differs dramatically from that vision.
Be dheectn laf aaiufys oste reactor deployme oehnntct ,e expected closed fuel cr yfocaflset reactors
ht aobns ecomea commercial reality, even thou sabghe thie n successfully demonstrata e rnado ther
large scale in France and at an experimental level in Russia, the USA, Japan, India and the UK.
Meanwhile, the feasibility of recycling plutonium in the form of MOX fuel in existing light
water reactors has been demonstrated at the industrial level in a few industrialized countries. While
the advocates of a closed cycle consider this step to be only a temporary expedient until fast reactors
are available, others consider it a necessary method for consuming civil and military plutonium
stockpiles
Iw otn sig enerally agreed that direct disposala si feasible optionr of spent fuel management
for countries choosing this path. At the same time, studies are in progress in some countries to define
new closed cycle strategies which would minime itzhreta nsuranic element conter fonifnt al disposal.
. 4 Defence sector nuclear material muse tbta ken carfeo
A fourthd R"nnuaesw As i eaSChr Uehot alafd lvoei tehs W tyd ihtb"a nare ,etg wuenhitth
to reduce their nuclear arsenals and that other NWS may - in due course - follow this lead. Disposal
e fhists filoe emsauotr erials coming e fdrhoetmfe nr ecaxef e pm bsoeeoc scotrt eeot-0d r t0h1an
tonnd neas uPs efo veral hundred ton- wwenn a sie UeEHsl fo come- challenge.
5. Other developments
Lastly, we must take note of the "new reality" that there are a number of States, especially in
Central and Eastern Europe, which have a substantial nuclear power share, but little or no
infrastruce tufe hurbe heaatmll Wct ukcsf ys-uroetcp onlpaed fl.osro t note tehaht td enlaiys
establishmf efoinn tal storage eeh mfate ca rdiggl nleioftniaboecas e l mr aforukefel tcycle services,
including reprocessing, are other significant realities in fuel cycle developments during the past 20
years.
10